whisper

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (send private message) but does not disclose possible outcomes (e.g., player not found, asynchronous delivery, authentication requirements) or any side effects. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the schema fully documents them. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description could have briefly mentioned delivery semantics or failure behavior to make it fully complete. It is adequate but has room to inform about edge cases.

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 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already offers, consistent with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Send a private message') and a resource ('a player'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like send_chat. The word 'private' explicitly differentiates it from public chat.

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 usage for private communication but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like send_chat or mention when to prefer this tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, only a clear purpose.

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