chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a chat/text is sent in the game, without explaining whether the message is public, costs an action, or has any constraints. This is a minimal action description without added behavioral 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 sentence with no redundant information. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about whether chat is a free action or consumes a turn, and what the in-game effect is. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description alone doesn't fully cover these behavioral aspects.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only mentions '聊天/文字' (chat/text), which implies the 'text' parameter holds the message content. It does not provide details on length, format, or other semantics, so the compensation for the missing schema description is only partial.

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 uses the specific verb '发送' (send) and resource '聊天/文字' (chat/text), clearly identifying the tool's function. None of the sibling tools (get_game_state, train, build, move, attack, gather, stop, hold) relate to messaging, so it is easily distinguished.

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 explicit guidance on when to use chat vs alternatives. However, the sibling tools are all distinct game actions, making the intended use (sending a message) reasonably implied. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative communication methods.

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