agent_chat_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the wake behavior but fails to mention important traits like whether the tool is idempotent, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. The description is minimal and leaves much to inference.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a crucial condition. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite having 100% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the status parameter's role or any return behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the most basic send action.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it repeats the wake condition already stated in the schema's text parameter description.

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 'Send a chat message', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agent_chat_helper or agent_chat_register, which could have overlapping functionality.

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 a condition for waking agents ('text must include @username or @all'), giving some usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like agent_chat_watch.

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