say

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the core side effect (an in-character message in game chat), but does not state whether the message is publicly broadcast, whether permissions or cooldowns apply, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes meaning, and the roleplay context is embedded without extra clauses.

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 chat command with an output schema and a straightforward action, the description plus input schema is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and richer behavioral detail, but the operation is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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 only parameter, text, is self-explanatory as the message content, and the description's 'something' maps to it. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add detail beyond that mapping or mention the length constraints, though the schema itself carries them.

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 uses a specific verb ('say') tied to a clear resource ('game chat') and adds the roleplay constraint 'as your character.' This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like read_chat and other non-chat actions.

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 'Say something in game chat as your character' gives a clear context for use: when the agent's character needs to speak in chat. It does not explicitly name read_chat as the alternative for reading, but the action is self-evident and there are no competing write-chat tools.

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