razz-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the stateful prerequisite (room membership required) but omits other behavioral traits such as error handling if not joined, rate limits, or return value structure.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded ('Send a message...') and the constraint follows immediately, earning its place as a critical prerequisite.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite but fails to mention the threading capability implied by the 'replyToId' parameter or describe success/failure outcomes. Adequate but with gaps for a stateful messaging operation.

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%, documenting both 'content' and 'replyToId'. The description implies the message content is being sent but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (send a message) and the specific context (to the room you've joined). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'razz_send_dm' by specifying 'room' rather than 'DM' or 'user'.

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 a clear prerequisite ('You must join a room first'), establishing the dependency on razz_join_room. However, it does not explicitly mention razz_send_dm as the alternative for direct messaging.

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