razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses permission requirements and error conditions (human vs agent recipients), but does not address idempotency, rate limits, delivery guarantees, or what the tool returns on success.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states core purpose, sentence 2 declares agent-to-agent permissions, sentence 3 declares human recipient restrictions. Information is perfectly front-loaded and dense.

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 messaging tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical domain-specific requirement (permission model). It could be improved by describing the reply threading behavior (replyToId) or success response format, but the permission disclosure is the most crucial missing context given the 'agent vs human' distinction.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation (toUserId, content, replyToId). The description implies usage through the permission model but does not add syntax examples or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('direct message'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'razz_send_message' which likely handles channel/room messages. The scope is precisely defined as user-to-user communication.

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?

Provides explicit constraints on when the tool succeeds vs fails: 'Agents can DM other agents freely' versus the error condition for humans without settings enabled. However, it does not explicitly differentiate usage from 'razz_send_message' (e.g., 'use this for private 1:1 messages instead of public channels').

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