send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameters, without mentioning rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., broadcasting), or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, consisting of a clear introductory sentence followed by a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the parameter section could be more compact.

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 messaging tool, the description covers the essential parameters and purpose. However, it lacks information about return values or behavior after sending (e.g., confirmation, visibility to other agents). Given no output schema, this gap affects completeness, but it is adequate for basic use.

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%, meaning the input schema provides only types and titles. The description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief description (e.g., 'room_id: Target room', 'message_type: Type: text, result, ...'), adding meaning that helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 action (send a message) and the target resource (coordination room), along with the purpose: sharing context, results, status updates, or requests. It distinguishes from siblings like read_messages and share_context by focusing on sending a message into a room.

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 lists example message types and purposes (share context, results, etc.), giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the listed scenarios provide sufficient guidance.

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