minecraft_say

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (refusal of slash commands), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not mention return behavior, error handling, or whether the message is broadcast to all players, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the constraint is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough for an agent to call it correctly: send a plain text message and avoid leading slashes. It does not explain success/failure signals, but that is minor for a send action.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'message' is the chat text to send and adds the constraint that slash commands are refused, which provides semantic meaning beyond the raw type definition. It could be more explicit about the expected format, but it is sufficient.

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') and the resource ('plain Minecraft chat'), and it explicitly excludes slash commands, which distinguishes it from any command-related tools. Among siblings, it is the only chat tool, so its purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it does provide a negative guideline ('Slash commands are refused'), which implies it is for plain chat only. Since no sibling tool handles chat, this is acceptable, but explicit when-to-use guidance is lacking.

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