Chat Send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one concrete behavioral fact: type only accepts DM / PLAYER with upstream validation and a test date. However, it does not disclose persistence, visibility, or error behavior on send.

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 compact, front-loaded, and free of filler. It could carry more operational detail, but its brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 send tool with an output schema, the description covers core purpose and the key type constraint. Missing usage guidance and behavioral detail such as whether the message is persisted or visible to players keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the allowed type values and notes validation, but it does not define content beyond the general 'DM narrative / NPC line' context. Partial compensation for incomplete schema semantics.

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 identifies the tool as handling DM narration / NPC dialogue, and the title 'Chat Send' supplies the verb. It is unambiguous about the resource and intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from chat_read.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_read. The phrase 'DM 叙事 / NPC 台词' implies a role-based use case, but there is no contextual or exclusionary guidance.

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