send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits like message splitting with typing delays and reply functionality, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when sending fails. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly but lacks information about return values, error handling, authentication requirements, and operational constraints. It's complete for basic usage but insufficient for robust implementation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail. It clarifies target types, optional reply functionality, and sophisticated message splitting behavior including the interaction between split_content and num_chunks. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 a message') and target ('to a monitored group or whitelisted friend'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_image' beyond the message type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_image' or other communication methods. It mentions target types but doesn't explain when to choose 'group' vs 'private' or prerequisites for sending messages.

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