qq_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, delivery guarantees, failure modes, or any state changes beyond the act of sending. The phrase 'whitelisted owner' hints at a prerequisite but is not elaborated, and no information about return values or errors is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently delivers the action, recipient, and parameter meaning, and even includes a clarifying parenthetical about the recipient. Every word contributes value.

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 has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It defines the purpose and the parameter, and implies an active chat context. However, it lacks explicit information about expected behavior after sending, potential errors, or prerequisites beyond the implied 'whitelisted owner,' leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that 'message is the content,' which clarifies the single parameter's role. However, it does not provide details on format, length, or constraints, so compensation is minimal but present.

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 action ('Send') and the specific resource ('a private message to the current chat user'), with additional clarification that the recipient is 'the whitelisted owner from inbox.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like qq_poll_inbox (receive) and qq_status (status check).

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you want to send a private message) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools for receiving messages or other contexts where this would be inappropriate, so guidance is only implicit.

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