chat_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the private side panel vs. meeting chat, but does not explain side effects, return values, permissions, or the session parameter. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the main action (reply in side panel chat) and immediately clarifies the common confusion (not meeting chat). Every word earns its place.

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 simple, but the description lacks explanation of parameters and return behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient for purpose but incomplete for full invocation confidence.

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 schema has 0% documentation coverage, and the description does not explain the 'text' or 'session' parameters at all. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter purpose.

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: replying in the side panel chat. It explicitly distinguishes this from the meeting chat by naming call_chat as the alternative, making it easy to understand the tool's specific role.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use and names the alternative tool (call_chat) for the meeting chat. However, it does not mention other sibling tools like speak or attach, so guidance is incomplete but adequate for the primary alternative.

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