Оголошення в чат сервера

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the main behavioral traits: the message is public, visible to all players, and attributed to the server. It omits minor details like error/return behavior, but for a chat broadcast the core side effect is explicit.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action, audience, attribution, and command equivalent are all front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely complete: required message is covered, optional timeout is covered, and the effect is clear. It would benefit from explicit guidance about sibling alternatives, but the agent can invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 50%; timeout_ms is well described in the schema, but the description contributes nothing about it. The description does clarify that 'message' is the chat content being broadcast, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented message field.

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: it broadcasts a message in chat to all players on behalf of the server, and explicitly identifies the Minecraft command (/say). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like mc_command and unrelated tools like mc_teleport or mc_give.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a server-wide chat announcement is needed. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose mc_say over mc_command or name alternatives/exclusions, so an agent must infer the routing context.

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