send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it provides useful behavioral detail: the call returns immediately with status=generating, wait_sec caps at 900, and reply_format accepts a specific set of values. It does not cover failures, permissions, or irreversibility, but the async and format behavior is materially disclosed.

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 compact sentences front-load the core operation, then pack the important behavioral and format details without filler. The parenthetical file limit and reply_format shorthand are efficient and directly usable.

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 five-parameter send tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the main call behavior, the wait mechanism, and response format choices. It omits output shape and error behavior, but sibling tools like wait and get_reply, plus the returned status=generating note, partially fill that gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains wait_sec's maximum, reply_format's allowed values, and the files count/scope constraint, but it does not clarify chat or text semantics such as identifiers, format, or length, leaving those to inference from required parameters.

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 concrete action—send a message to a chat—and adds specific scope: optional files under the work dir with a maximum of 10. This clearly positions it against sibling tools like open_chat, wait, and get_reply, which focus on other chat operations.

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?

It conveys the core usage context: sending a message and choosing whether to wait or return immediately via wait_sec. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as wait or get_reply for retrieving a response, so routing to siblings depends on inference from their names.

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