发送消息(通用)

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention delivery semantics, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the message is actually dispatched immediately, so an agent gets minimal insight into side effects beyond the word 'send'.

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 short sentences contain only essential information: the tool's generic purpose, the type/id pairing rule, and the message format options. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers what an agent needs to construct a valid call: required message_type and message, plus the conditional ID choice. It does not explain the return value, but no output schema exists, and it could be stronger by pointing to sibling tools for dedicated private/group sending.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics by explaining that message_type selects between user_id and group_id, and by clarifying that message can be plain text or a segment array. This relationship is not fully explicit in the schema alone.

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 clear action ('send message') and explicitly scopes it as a generic/universal sender that handles both private and group targets. It is clear, though it does not name or differentiate itself from the dedicated siblings send_private_msg and send_group_msg.

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 gives clear operational guidance: choose message_type and provide the matching user_id or group_id. However, it offers no guidance about when to prefer this generic send_msg over the dedicated send_private_msg or send_group_msg siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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