send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: chat alone does not launch work, which matters for an agent deciding how to dispatch effort. It omits permissions, delivery semantics, idempotency (despite a dedupe_key parameter), and any rate or failure behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key routing caveat about 'chat' is placed at the end as an emphasis point. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity contributes to its under-specification.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and several undocumented fields, the description is far too thin; the presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values but not the missing parameter and usage detail.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It loosely references the kind values ('chat'/'task') and the addressed nature of 'to', but 'reply_to' and 'dedupe_key' remain entirely unexplained.

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 names the resource ('Adresovaná chat zpráva nebo trvalý task') but supplies no verb, so the action (sending/creating) must be inferred from the tool name. It also fails to differentiate itself from close siblings such as 'say' or 'ack'.

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 clause '`chat` samo nespouští práci' hints that a chat message will not trigger work, implying a task mode would, which is useful directional guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over 'say' or 'ack', nor the concrete condition that selects the task mode.

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