zeph_broadcast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates the sending action without adding behavioral details like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects (openWorldHint=true suggests unknown side effects). The description lacks additional context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical usage hint. Every word serves a purpose with no unnecessary information.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description explains the primary action and provides a resource lookup hint. However, it fails to describe return values, error conditions, or potential impacts on subscribers, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes all five parameters. The description does not contribute any parameter-specific meaning, maintaining the baseline score of 3 as per rubric when schema coverage is high.

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 'Send a push notification to all subscribers of a channel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zeph_notify by the 'broadcast' nature, but does not explicitly differentiate from zeph_notify, which may cause ambiguity.

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 includes a helpful hint to use zeph://channels to find channels, implying a prerequisite. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zeph_notify) or scenarios to avoid, leaving usage context vague.

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