xete_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses in-process encryption, server-side ciphertext visibility, cost model, keypair requirements, and return type. This is strong, though it omits potential failure modes or async behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three short sentences adding valuable context (encryption, free messaging, keypair requirement). No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers security, cost, key requirements, and the return value. An output schema exists, so return format is not needed in the description. For a simple send tool with clear sibling context, this is fairly complete, though it could mention recipient existence checks or error scenarios.

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 schema has 3 parameters and 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of recipient_agent_id, message, or subject. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not provide parameter-level details.

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 the action ('Send an END-TO-END ENCRYPTED message to another xete agent') and the resource (message to agent). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xete_check_inbox (receiving) and xete_lookup_agent (finding agents).

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?

Provides clear context about when a funded keypair is needed and that messaging is free, which helps the agent decide if prerequisites are met. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling tools are fairly distinct.

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