call_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns the delivery result') and indicates failures are reported via polling ('poll reports failures too'). It does not mention safety, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple send operation this is acceptable partial disclosure.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds valuable behavioral details about the return value and failure reporting. No words are wasted.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description leaves gaps: it does not clarify what 'session' refers to, what the 'delivery result' looks like, or how polling for failures works. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 lists two parameters (text and session) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'text' is the message content ('Send a message'), but it does not explain the 'session' parameter at all, leaving users to infer its meaning.

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's function: 'Send a message into the meeting chat, visible to everyone.' It uses a specific verb (send) and resource (meeting chat) and distinguishes from siblings like chat_reply by emphasizing visibility to everyone.

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 phrase 'visible to everyone' implies the tool is for public messages, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like chat_reply, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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