agenthop_say

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns whether delivery succeeded and that multi-line text is allowed, but says nothing about permissions, failure/retry semantics, queueing, or message limits.

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?

Four short clauses that each carry distinct information: purpose, return value, the joiner special case, and the sibling alternatives. Front-loaded and free of padding.

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 one-parameter message tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, return indication, and sibling routing. A bit more on delivery failure behavior would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'text'. The description adds marginal value by stating the text may span multiple lines, which is not expressed in the schema, but nothing else about format or length.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (say something to the other party) and explicitly bounds the input shape (can be multi-line). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming agenthop_working and agenthop_bye for other roles, though it never explains the broader messaging model or how it differs from agenthop_send_file.

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 routes the agent to alternatives for adjacent actions — agenthop_working for receipts and agenthop_bye for ending — and clarifies that a joiner's first message serves as confirmation of the opening statement. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not or ordering guidance for the core message case.

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