Send a chat message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states that the message 'appears in game chat' and 'triggers normal chat events', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects like visibility to other players, chat logging, or rate limits, so it provides moderate transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the action and key effect. No filler or repetition, 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 covers the core action and the main behavioral consequence (triggering chat events). It is slightly sparse on environmental impact (e.g., whether other players see the message), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a chat action.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds a small clarification that the message is sent 'as the player', relating to the 'player' parameter's default behavior, but it does not add significant semantic detail 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: 'Send a chat message as the player', identifies the resource (game chat), and notes it 'triggers normal chat events'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are movement, world interaction, or inventory operations.

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 the tool (when you want the player to send a chat message) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since there are no direct chat-related siblings, the context is clear enough, but exclusions or prerequisites are missing.

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