server_say

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The description clearly indicates a mutating action (broadcasting) but does not disclose any potential side effects, such as whether the message is logged, or if there are restrictions (e.g., formatting). It does not contradict anything because there are no annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that perfectly communicates the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and there is no extraneous content. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. An agent can infer how to call it. However, it lacks context about the underlying server protocol, such as whether the message supports color codes or commands, and does not explain return behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter, 'message', as a string. The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional detail about the parameter. However, the parameter is self-explanatory given the description, and the baseline for parameter semantics when schema has no descriptions and 1 param is adaptive. The description implies the parameter is the message text, but does not add syntax or format details.

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 'Broadcast a chat message to all players' clearly states the action (broadcast), the resource (chat message), and the target (all players). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools, none of which are about broadcasting messages.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you want to send a chat message to all players. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., rcon_command for sending a command). Since there are no annotations or context, this is a minor gap.

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