Send Action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool shows status indicators, implying a non-destructive read-like operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, duration of the indicator, or permissions required. This is adequate but minimal.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. The list of actions is included but doesn't add fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the available actions. It lacks details on the duration of the status indicator, but that is not critical.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description lists the actions (e.g., 'typing_on'), repeating the enum values, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 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 tool's purpose: showing a typing indicator or other status to chat members. It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource 'typing indicator or other status', and lists the available actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use before sending a message to improve UX.' This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for sending actual messages), but the context is sufficient.

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