ai_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the side effects (send + mark answered), the confirm=true guardrail, and the 2s delay between sends. It does not cover reversibility or error behavior, but the core safety-relevant behavior is surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, followed by side effect, prerequisite, and timing constraint in a single breath. No filler, though the unexplained 'Wa.p' token slightly hurts clarity.

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?

It captures the essential flow, the confirm guardrail, and the rate-limit behavior, which is a solid amount of context given no annotations. But with no output schema, the agent is still missing expected return values, the failure mode when confirm is false, and what exactly 'answered' means in the queue state.

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 50%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful parameter-level fact—confirm must be true, overriding the schema's default false—and implies the role of answer. It does not clarify the answer payload format or go beyond the schema's 'from ai_inbox' hints for chatJid/messageId.

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 states a specific action ('Jawab antrean' – answer the queue) and its concrete effects: send to the original chat and mark as answered. This distinguishes it from generic send_message, though the cryptic 'Wa.p' adds a small amount of ambiguity.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and implies this tool is for queued inbox replies. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like send_message or states when not to use it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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