send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the basic send operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., message delivery, error handling, or async behavior). This is minimal transparency for a mutation-like action.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. It explains what the tool does and what the parameter means, but lacks disclosure on side effects, return behavior, or any operational context. It is sufficient for a simple send operation but not richer.

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?

The parameter 'state' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description explicitly defines it as '要发送的消息内容' (the message content to send), adding critical meaning that the schema lacks. This effectively compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool's function: '发送飞书消息' (Send Feishu message). This is a specific verb (send) plus resource (Feishu message), and with no siblings listed, there's no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description is purely functional without any contextual usage direction.

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