raw_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that the tool 'may open a dialog or change project state', which is useful transparency about side effects. However, it lacks specifics about the nature of the dialog or state changes, and it does not explain the actual behavior of 'sending a message' or what the command name refers to. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose ('Send a test message'). The second sentence adds a necessary caveat about side effects and a caution to inspect the command name. However, the phrase 'inspect the command name first' is ambiguous and could be clarified without adding length, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and warns of potential side effects. However, it leaves key questions unanswered: what exactly does the message do, how does an agent use it, and what does 'inspect the command name' mean in practice? The reliance on an unstated command name adds ambiguity, making the description only partially complete for a confused 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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema itself fully documents the parameters (none exist). The description reinforces this by noting it is a 'no-argument' action. Since there are no parameters to elaborate on, the description cannot add more meaning in this dimension; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 action: 'Send a test message to Audacity', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It also notes it is a static no-argument action, distinguishing it from parameterized tools. However, it does not fully disambiguate from the many other raw_* sibling tools, especially since the caution to 'inspect the command name first' implies a generic wrapper without specifying what makes this different.

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 gives a partial use case ('test message') but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. The instruction to 'inspect the command name first' hints at a prerequisite but does not clarify when to use this specific tool versus other raw_* actions. Given the large sibling set, the absence of routing guidance is a significant gap.

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