mc_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the message is public on the server, whether '/'-prefixed text triggers a command, message length limits, rate limiting, or failure behavior if the player is disconnected. The only behavioral detail is the 'as the player' identity claim.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well structured. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloated, so it loses a point for what it omits rather than for verbosity.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present. What is missing is the chat-versus-command boundary and any indication of what happens after sending, which matters given the mc_command sibling.

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 100% with a single required string parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the message payload — no length cap, formatting, or escaping rules — that would help an agent construct a valid value.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Send a chat message') plus a scope qualifier ('as the player'), which tells an agent this speaks in the player's voice rather than a console. It stops short of distinguishing chat from the sibling mc_command, so the reader must infer that slash commands belong elsewhere.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears; the description never names mc_command or mc_chat_log as alternatives. An agent must guess whether a message beginning with '/' should go here or to mc_command.

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