reply_to_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the tool as a 'convenience wrapper', but does not detail side effects, idempotency (though dedupe_key hints), error handling, or how it differs from send_message in behavior. This is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's consequences.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core idea. It contains no unnecessary words. However, while concise, it sacrifices completeness; but for the dimension of conciseness alone, it earns top marks.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (many optional) and no output schema. The description fails to explain return values, error scenarios, or how the wrapper behaves differently from the underlying send_message call. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too sparse to provide complete context.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond stating the requirement of the message_id parameter. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or provide context like the effect of dry_run or dedupe_key. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is a 'convenience wrapper around send_message with required reply_to_message_id', which clearly identifies the tool's function as replying to a message. It distinguishes from the sibling 'send_message' by implying the requirement of a reply target, though not explicitly naming the alternative.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message'. The description implies it should be used when replying, but does not state exclusions or provide context for when not to use it. It lacks mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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