agenthop_say

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns whether the message was delivered, supports multi-line text, and notes that the joining side's first line is a confirmation. These details help an agent understand the tool's side effects and response, though it doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or idempotency (which annotations already partially address).

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 short and front-loads the core purpose and delivery return. It includes a specialized note about the joining side's first line and routes to two alternatives, with little wasted wording. It could be slightly more polished, but every sentence contributes.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, return value, and multi-line behavior. It leaves minor assumptions (e.g., what 'the other side' means) to context, but is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the single 'text' parameter as 'What to say'. The description adds that the text 'may span several lines,' which is useful semantic detail not present in 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Say') and resource ('something to the other side'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from two siblings (agenthop_working for receipts, agenthop_bye to finish), though it does not differentiate from others like 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 explicitly names alternatives and the conditions for using them: 'Use agenthop_working for receipts and agenthop_bye to finish.' This gives clear routing guidance for two related tools. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool versus other messaging or file-transfer siblings.

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