pine_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (send message) and that it can take JSON form data, but does not address side effects, whether the operation is asynchronous, error behavior, or if it modifies state beyond sending. Lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 (6-7 lines) and well-structured: primary purpose, secondary use case, follow-up suggestion, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers main and alternative uses and explains parameters. However, it could mention that the tool returns a response or that it is non-blocking. It adequately directs users to pine_get_history for the response.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It does so explicitly: session_id identifies the session, content can be text or JSON, attachments are optional metadata from pine_upload_attachment. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw types.

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?

Description states the tool is used to 'Send a message to Pine AI' and also 'submit form answers as JSON' when pine_send_form_response is not applicable. It distinguishes from siblings like pine_get_history, making the purpose clear and specific.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use the tool (describe task, answer questions, provide info) and when to use an alternative (pine_send_form_response is not applicable). Suggests using pine_get_history afterward, providing clear context for usage.

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