omni_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core side effect (broadcast), the visual style (blue), and the '[Agent]' prefix, but omits broadcast scope, whether the message persists, and whether any response is returned.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The core action and output format are front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and presentation. However, it leaves out who receives the broadcast, whether the chat line is ephemeral, and what the '[Agent]' prefix means, so it is adequate but not 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%, and the description never mentions the 'message' parameter or its constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the schema fully specifies limits, but the description adds no semantic value beyond that.

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?

'Broadcast' is a specific verb and 'blue [Agent] chat line' defines the resource and output format, distinguishing it from siblings like omni_command or omni_logs. It does not explain who receives the broadcast or what '[Agent]' refers to, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as omni_notifications, omni_logs, or omni_command. Context is only weakly implied by the 'chat line' wording.

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