send_message

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It discloses the action (sending) and parameter behaviors (e.g., reply_to interprets topic IDs) but omits side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. It is adequate but minimal.

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 one paragraph plus a bullet-like parameter list, each line serving a purpose. It is concise with no redundancy, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage notes).

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?

Parameter descriptions are thorough, but missing behavioral context (return value expectations, error scenarios, prerequisites). An output schema exists but its content is not reflected in the description; guidance on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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%, but the description compensates fully with detailed per-parameter explanations in the docstring. It clarifies chat accepts ID/@username/'me', reply_to can be message or topic ID, schedule_at format examples, and parse_mode enum values, adding high value beyond schema bare 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?

The description specifies '向某个对话发送文本消息' (send a text message to a chat), clearly stating the verb (send), resource (text message), and target (chat). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_file, send_sticker, etc., which send non-text content.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not compare with alternative tools (e.g., forward_messages for existing messages) or mention prerequisites like bot membership or permissions.

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