agtask_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether sending triggers notifications to other participants, whether the operation is idempotent or rate-limited, what permissions are needed, or whether the message content is validated/truncated. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 ten-character sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no filler. Given how little the author chose to say, nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover side effects and the return value (e.g., the created message ID). None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the consequences of invoking it.

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 100% – both conversation_id ('会话 ID') and content ('消息内容') are already documented in the schema. The description restates the conversation parameter generically but adds no format, length, or content-type semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (发送/send) and resource (消息/message) with a clear scope qualifier (在指定会话中/in the specified conversation), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the read-side siblings (agtask_fetch_messages, agtask_list_conversations), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must the conversation already exist, must the user be a participant), and no reference to alternatives such as agtask_fetch_messages for reading or agtask_list_conversations for discovery. The only implicit signal is that the conversation_id must be supplied, which the required schema already enforces.

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