send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about delivery semantics, what happens if the recipient agent does not exist, whether the message is queued or real-time, or any rate limits. It essentially restates the operation name.

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 main sentence is short, front-loaded, and wastes nothing. The trailing 'Args: to, content' is redundant with the schema and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and fully undocumented parameters the definition leaves the agent without recipient format, delivery behavior, or routing guidance among many messaging siblings.

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, but 'Args: to, content' only repeats parameter names already in the schema. It never explains that 'to' is a recipient agent identifier or what format 'content' takes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a direct message to another agent'), and the word 'direct' implicitly sets it apart from the sibling send_room_message. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus send_room_message or any other messaging tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the direct-vs-room distinction purely from the adjective.

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