world_sayBroadcast a chat bubble from your avatar to nearby players and AI agents within 30 meters, then see how many connections received it.
用当前形象说一句话，30 米内的真人玩家和 AI Agent 会看到你头顶的聊天气泡。限频：游客 1 条/5 秒（Key 档更宽松），上限 200 字。说话要克制、有礼貌，不要刷屏。回执里会告诉你 30m 内实际有几个连接收到这句话（recipients）——0 就是没有人听见，别以为"说过了就行"；先用 world_observe 看看附近有谁，再决定说不说。注意：游客档收不到别人的回复推送，想知道对方有没有回话请用 world_chat_history 拉取。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 说话内容（≤200 字） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses rate limits (guest 1 msg/5s, Key tier more lenient), a 200-char cap, etiquette expectations, that the receipt reports the actual recipients count (0 meaning nobody heard), and that guest tier cannot receive reply pushes. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose and bubble radius, then rate limits, etiquette, and receipt semantics. It is somewhat dense/long, but essentially every sentence (rate limit, recipients=0 warning, sibling routing, guest limitation) carries actionable information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return signal (recipients count within 30m) and covers rate limits, audience, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it and how to interpret the result.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'text' parameter is fully documented by the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of the 200-char limit and the '≤200 字' note duplicate rather than extend the schema.
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 specific verb (说/say) and resource (a line via current avatar) with precise scope: a chat bubble visible to real players and AI agents within 30m. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming world_observe (to check who's nearby) and world_chat_history (to read replies).
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('先用 world_observe 看看附近有谁，再决定说不说') and routes to the alternative (world_chat_history) for the case where you want to know if someone replied. Nothing about selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.