whisper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no statement about whether the target must be online, what happens if the player is not found, whether delivery is confirmed, or any rate limits. 'Send' implies an action but no failure or side-effect behavior is described.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the key noun front-loaded after the verb. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it is efficient but thin.

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 an action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves critical call-time questions unanswered (target resolution, offline behavior, delivery confirmation). It is too sparse for a tool in a crowded sibling set of chat and interaction commands.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented. The description only implicitly narrows 'target' to a player (vs. an ID or channel) and says nothing about message length, formatting, or how partial/ambiguous names are resolved.

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 ('private message') targeting a player. The word 'private' implicitly separates it from public-channel siblings like say, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, despite siblings say, party_chat, and party_reply occupying adjacent chat roles. The agent must infer from 'private' that this is a direct one-to-one channel rather than a broadcast or party channel.

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