relay_tick

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 sequence and the optional wait, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: whether the tool blocks, side effects on browser/chat state, failure modes, or whether it requires an existing browser connection. The vague 'mailnotmilk chat' further obscures the actual action performed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('One relay cycle') and uses a clear step-by-step arrow notation. It is appropriately short, though the 'mailnotmilk' oddity and lack of punctuation reduce polish.

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?

With five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected outcomes. It does not explain what the cycle returns, when to call it, or what 'mailnotmilk' refers to. The complexity of a relay orchestration demands more context than a one-line pipeline.

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 only 20% (only peer has a description). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it references a 'coding-agent' which likely maps to the peer param, but it doesn't explain site, title, chat_id, or wait_peer_ms. The optional wait is mentioned, but without linking to wait_peer_ms. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 outlines a specific multi-step process (extract browser messages, chat, wait, send back), which goes beyond a tautology. However, the phrase 'mailnotmilk chat' is ambiguous and likely a typo or obscure reference, weakening clarity. It does somewhat distinguish from simpler sibling tools like browser_extract_messages or chat_say by describing a combined cycle.

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 guidance on when to use relay_tick versus composing the individual steps manually. The description implies it is a higher-level orchestration, but it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., browser connection, active chat) or mention alternatives like using browser_extract_messages + chat_say separately.

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