reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'tagged' and 'final reply' but does not elaborate on behavioral implications such as whether it ends the prompt, prevents further replies, or any irreversible effects.

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?

Two sentences, first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description explains the workflow context (finishing a routed prompt) and identifies chat_id source, but lacks information about return value, error handling, or whether the action is reversible. Adequate but with gaps given the critical nature of a final reply.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value. It adds context for chat_id (source from await_routed_prompt) but text parameter is just restated. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool posts a 'tagged final reply' to a chat. It uses a specific verb ('post') and resource ('chat'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'reply_chunk' by specifying 'final reply'.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use this whenever you finish replying to a routed prompt' and a prerequisite: 'pass back the chat_id you received from await_routed_prompt'. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives like reply_chunk.

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