reply_to_companion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the reply appears as an assistant message and supports Markdown, but does not cover side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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?

Two short, direct sentences that convey the tool's action and result. No filler or redundant information. The key details (send, companion panel, Markdown) are front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of expected response (e.g., success confirmation) or any constraints mentioned in the schema's parameter description. A slightly richer description could improve completeness.

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 already documents the 'message' parameter with 'supports Markdown'. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning (e.g., length limits, required format, or behavior for empty strings). With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but description adds no extra value.

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 'Send a reply back to the AI Companion panel', specifying the verb (send) and the resource (reply to companion panel). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all read/get operations, making this the only write tool in the group.

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 context (when replying to companion) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings are all getters so it's implicitly the only write option.

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