broadcast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect that sessions in the same repo are 'interrupted', and the expanded impact of using 'general'. It does not discuss return values or full security implications, but for a broadcast tool these are covered well.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and packs necessary details about defaults and usage warnings without any waste.

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 simple messaging tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral impact, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists (signal true), so not explaining return values is acceptable. The description stands on its own within the sibling tool ecosystem.

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 must compensate. It fully explains the 'channel' parameter, including default null behavior and the special 'general' value. The 'text' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool purpose, though the description does not add explicit semantics for it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Broadcast' with a clear resource 'message to a channel'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_dm by implying a group/broadcast context, and the default channel behavior further clarifies its unique role.

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 on when to use the default channel (same repo) versus channel='general' (all projects), and includes a cautionary note ('do that only when...'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like send_dm for private messages, but the situation is well implied.

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