zeph_agent_send

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, destructive-capable operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the receiver sees a '[from <you>@<host> · reply: <your key>]' header, and the loop warning cautions against reflexive agent-to-agent replies. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the usage trigger, the receiver-visible effect, and the loop caution. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description covers the main operational context: when to use it, what the receiver sees, and a critical anti-loop warning. It does not describe the return/acknowledgment behavior, but no output schema exists and this is a minor gap for a send-style tool.

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 the schema already documents both `target` and `message` in detail. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Type a message into ANOTHER agent session' and clarifies the user-facing effect ('as if the user sent it from their phone'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'another agent session' and the reply-header behavior.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use when the user asks you to pass something to another agent.' It also provides a when-not-to-use warning about two agents replying to each other in a loop. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as zeph_broadcast or zeph_notify.

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