grove_bus_send

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

Annotations are minimal (no read-only, no destructive hint), so the description carries the burden of explaining the operation. It reveals the sender-resolution default, permission requirements, and that a different identity requires grove_relay. It also explains correlation_id and ttl semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a short prerequisite note and a linear Args list. Every line earns its place. Minor overhead from formatting spaces but overall well structured and not padded.

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 send tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, defaults, and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't mention what the return value indicates (success/error), whether messages are durable, or what happens when a message cannot be delivered. The app_id parameter is also unexplained. These gaps make it decent but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description is the only semantic source for parameters. It documents 8 of 9 parameters clearly (channel_name, content, sender, to_agent, bus_type, priority, correlation_id, ttl), and adds useful value like the priority-to-mode mapping and ttl expiration behavior. The only omission is app_id, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 opens with a clear action and object: 'Send a structured bus message.' It adds meaningful qualifiers — 'addressed, typed, and prioritized' — which distinguish this tool from sibling messaging tools like grove_send_message and grove_bus_receive. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 helpful usage context, including the required grove_write permission and the extra grove_relay requirement when impersonating another sender. It does not explicitly say when to choose grove_bus_send over grove_send_message, but the structured-bus framing and parameter details imply the appropriate use case.

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