agent_get_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'with individual task statuses per agent' but does not explain authentication requirements, whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens if the broadcast_id is invalid. The description lacks essential behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the core functionality with minimal verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description gives a high-level idea of the output ('broadcast detail with individual task statuses per agent') but lacks specifics on return structure or field details. Since there is no output schema, the agent may need more detail to parse results correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (api_key, broadcast_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not elaborate on parameter format, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Get broadcast detail with individual task statuses per agent.' It specifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('broadcast detail'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agent_list_broadcasts' (likely lists broadcast IDs without details) and 'agent_broadcast_task' (getting a single task).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agent_list_broadcasts' or 'agent_broadcast_task'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or any context for selection.

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