say_local

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the action continues an ongoing conversation and requires an active local meeting, suggesting a conversational side-effect rather than a purely read-only operation. It omits details like response behavior, error cases, and whether history is modified, but for a simple chat tool this is adequate.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The key constraint ('active'), the environment ('LOCAL', 'CLI-based'), and the action are all front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is sufficient for basic invocation: provide a meeting_id from start_local_meeting and a message. It is not fully complete because it does not describe output, alternative tool routing, or failure behavior, but the low complexity and clear schema keep it adequate.

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 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because meeting_id and message are straightforwardly documented.

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 uses a specific action ('continue') and resource ('active LOCAL meeting'), and the 'LOCAL' qualifier plus 'CLI-based' parenthetical help separate it from sibling tools like say, start_local_meeting, and continue_collaboration. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or say what 'continue' returns, but the intended scope is clear.

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 phrase 'active LOCAL meeting' implies the tool should be used only when a local CLI meeting is already running, and the schema ties meeting_id to start_local_meeting. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, such as using say for non-local meetings or start_local_meeting if no meeting exists.

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