qrchat_send_message

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 adds one concrete behavioral trait: 'one timeout retry reuses the generated UUID,' which hints at idempotency. However, it does not disclose other relevant aspects such as auth requirements, whether the operation is a write/mutation, or any side effects beyond posting a message.

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 that directly states the action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, usage context, and potential outcomes. It only covers the purpose and one retry detail, leaving the tool incompletely documented for an agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (type, message, reply_to_id). It provides zero guidance on what values are expected or how they affect the call, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 the specific action ('Post to this agent's QRChat room'), clearly identifying the resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like qrchat_room_info and qrchat_read_messages. The verb 'Post' is unambiguous in this context.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs to send a message to the QRChat room. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. The purpose effectively conveys when to use, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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