Whisper / Direct Message Player

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds context about using /msg or /tell. However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., player offline) or message length limits beyond the schema. It adds some value but could be richer.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and the return value clearly noted. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 two plain parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, privacy, command mechanism, and return format. It doesn't elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations provided, it is sufficiently complete.

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 does not explicitly explain the parameters, though 'sends a private message to a specific player' implies a recipient (username) and content (message). The return value '{ message: string }' is mentioned, but no additional semantics are provided. The parameter names are self-evident, so the lack of detail is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 tool's function: sending a private message to a specific player, visible only to them. It uses a specific verb ('sends') and specifies the resource (player) and scope (private), distinguishing it from sibling tools like minecraft_chat. Mentioning the server's /msg or /tell equivalent adds clarity.

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 when to use this tool: for private, player-specific messages rather than public chat. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of chat when privacy is needed' or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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