Send raw IRC line

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

The description explicitly states 'Destructive and unrestricted,' which directly supplements the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by adding a clear warning about the tool's risky nature. It also gives a safety rule about using it only as a last resort. This goes beyond the annotations' binary flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. The warning and usage guidance are concise and impactful without redundancy.

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 simple raw IRC tool, the description covers the most critical behavioral aspects (destructive, unrestricted) and usage context. However, it omits operational details like whether the line should include CRLF, how the 'account' parameter affects behavior, and potential consequences like connection termination. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the parameter semantics remain a gap.

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% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation for the 'line' or 'account' parameters. From the name and description, 'line' can be inferred as the raw IRC line, but 'account' is unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose (likely selecting a connection). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 raw IRC protocol line.' This specifies the verb (send), resource (raw IRC protocol line), and distinguishes it from higher-level siblings like irc_send_message by emphasizing 'raw' and 'unrestricted'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use only when no higher-level tool fits.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool as a fallback and implies that alternatives should be preferred. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the sibling list provides that context.

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