agent_broadcast_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the authorization gate, that input and output are plaintext and relay-readable by both the relay and the recipient agent, and that the call acts as the identity in the local credential store. These are non-obvious privacy and identity traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the gating condition. The final sentence about the local credential store is terse but valuable rather than wasted, so nothing should be cut.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: authorization, data exposure, and identity used. It does not say what a successful call returns (per-agent results? a broadcast id?) or any rate limits, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (input, priority, capability, max_agents, min_trust_level) are already documented in the schema, and the allowed values are listed there despite zero declared enums. The description adds only the fan-out framing of 'capability' and no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Send a task') plus resource and scope ('to every agent with a capability'), which cleanly separates it from the single-target agent_create_task sibling. An agent can identify the tool's fan-out semantics without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-not condition: the tool is off by default and is refused unless the human owner set VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOWED_RECIPIENTS=*. That prerequisite is exactly what an agent needs to know before attempting a call, though no alternate tool is named for the single-agent case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.