emote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action verb. It does not say whether the emote is broadcast publicly, whether there is a cooldown or spam limit, whether an invalid emote_id errors, or what side effects occur. Only the bare 'sending' signal is present.

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, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity; the single sentence does not earn much because it conveys almost no information. Adequate form, thin substance.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, everything an agent needs must come from the description, and it does not deliver. It omits valid emote_id values, visibility/broadcast scope, and any error behavior. For a one-parameter action tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 single required parameter emote_id has no title-side explanation beyond its name. The description adds nothing about valid id ranges, where to discover ids, or whether emote_id maps to a fixed table. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and completely fails to.

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 a verb ('send') and a resource ('emote'), so an agent knows it fires off an emote animation/expression. However, it does not distinguish this from chat siblings such as say, whisper, or party_chat, nor clarify whether the emote is broadcast to nearby players or a target. Minimal but adequate purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether emote is for visual expressions only, whether it can be combined with say, or whether it requires being in a specific game state. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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