chat_post

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 discloses the basic behavior (posting to chat) but does not mention any side effects, limitations, or error conditions. For a simple tool, 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 very concise with no superfluous sentences. The key information is front-loaded. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema and could be omitted.

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 (single string parameter, required) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality and intended use. It does not explain prerequisites or return values, but these are self-evident for a chat posting tool.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: 'Text to display in the in-game chat' merely restates the parameter name 'message' and type 'string'. It does not provide details on formatting, length limits, or encoding.

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 ('post') and the target ('in-game chat panel'), and specifies the direction ('Claude -> User'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_chat_history' (read) and 'ask_in_game' (possibly user-initiated).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to ask questions, report findings, or request actions,' providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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