say

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. It discloses only that the message is public (visible to others), but says nothing about character limits, rate limits, spam/cooldown behavior, or error conditions for an in-game chat action.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 one-parameter chat tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it correctly. It nonetheless omits channel scoping and any input constraints an agent would want before sending a message.

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 parameter ('message') is documented nowhere beyond its name. The description adds no meaning such as length constraints, formatting, or command-prefix behavior, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('public chat message in-game'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. The word 'public' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like whisper and party_chat, but it never names them, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many chat-related siblings (whisper, party_chat, party_reply). The 'public' qualifier hints at the contrast with private channels but never states it, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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