send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the 'source_guid' parameter prevents duplicate sends, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether messages are editable/deletable after sending, or what happens on success/failure. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important constraints beyond the text length limit. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable semantic context for all 4 parameters: it explains what 'group_id' and 'text' are for, clarifies the purpose of 'source_guid' (prevent duplicate sends, auto-generated if blank), and describes 'attachments' as optional with examples of attachment types. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 the action ('Send a message') and target resource ('to a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'send_direct_message' or 'post_as_bot', which would require explicit comparison for 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_direct_message' or 'post_as_bot'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be a group member) or any context about when this operation is appropriate versus inappropriate.

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