Chat with one of your hosts

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the host replies 'in its own voice' and treats the creator specially. It also indicates the interaction is two-way (send and reply). However, it does not disclose potential safety concerns like rate limits or auth requirements.

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 two sentences and conveys the core purpose efficiently. The parenthetical about warmth is slightly extraneous but not overly verbose, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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 chat tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the action but does not specify the format of the reply (e.g., raw text or structured). This omission leaves a minor gap in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating 'get host_id from list_hosts', so it meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 verb 'Send a message' and the resource 'one of your hosts', and specifies the action returns its reply. It distinguishes the tool by noting the host's unique voice and creator relationship, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like instruct_post.

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 implies when to use (sending a message to a host and getting a reply) and provides a prerequisite ('Get host_id from list_hosts'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives such as instruct_post.

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