channel_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses support for cross-team broadcasting and @mention semantics, but omits details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects if the channel doesn't exist.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a bullet list. Front-loaded with the primary action, then adds features and channel formats. No redundant words.

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?

Has an output schema, so no return value explanation needed. Covers the main action, channel formats, and mention capability. Missing behavioral context like prerequisites or error conditions, but sufficient for a simple send tool.

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 100%, setting baseline at 3. The description adds value by defining channel format patterns (team:<name>, project:<id>, global) with examples, and clarifying mention syntax with sample tags, which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'Send a message to a channel', specifying the action and resource. It further details cross-team broadcasting and @mention semantics, and provides explicit channel formats (team:<name>, project:<id>, global), distinguishing it from siblings like channel_read or send_notification.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cross_project_send or send_notification. The description does not specify prerequisites, restrictions, or contrasting use cases.

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