tunnel_say

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

With no annotations available, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining the effects (e.g., is the message delivered instantly, is it logged, does it block?). This is minimal transparency.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified. It does not fully earn its place because it fails to provide context that an agent needs.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the communication flow (e.g., the message is sent to a peer in a tunnel). It omits this and any relation to sibling tools like tunnel_listen, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 one required parameter 'text' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not clarify what format or content is expected. It adds no value beyond the schema's type definition.

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: 'Send a chat message to the peer agent.' It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('chat message'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., tunnel_listen, tunnel_open) that involve other actions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an active tunnel, or that the peer must be listening via tunnel_listen. The agent receives no context for appropriate usage.

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