Broadcast Text Message

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 target audience (all followers) and includes a generic warning ('Use with caution'), but it does not explain potential side effects, rate limits, or consequences of broadcasting to a large audience. The warning is vague and lacks specificity.

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 two short sentences. It delivers the essential information (action and target) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, and the 'Use with caution' warning adds important context without bloating the text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It omits details about return values or error handling, but given the simplicity and the presumed API context, it is reasonably complete. The lack of explicit mention of response or failure modes is a minor gap.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter 'text' (type, min/max length, description), so the tool description adds no additional meaning. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not elaborate on any nuances or usage constraints beyond the schema.

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 (broadcast a text message) and the target (ALL followers), distinguishing it from multicast and push tools that target specific audiences. It also specifies the message type (text), differentiating it from other broadcast variants like flex or image.

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 implies the appropriate use case by emphasizing 'ALL followers' and warns with 'Use with caution.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over multicast or push, nor does it specify conditions where this tool should be avoided. The scope is clear but the guidance is implicit.

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