chat_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It candidly discloses debate mode, pendingApproval gating, non-blocking Q&A/debate, file-write routing restrictions, and assistant-message metadata. This is unusually transparent about side effects and modes.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by dense, distinct behavior rules with no filler and no repetition of schema content. Every sentence adds a separate routing, blocking, or output fact.

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 nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers routing, approval gating, blocking behavior, and response message fields. It does not state the exact return shape or how to retrieve/follow up on the resulting thread via chat_get/follow_up, leaving a small but real gap.

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 only 44%, and the description compensates richly for pin by extending the schema text with auto-router behavior. However, it is silent on cwd, branch, pr_url, repo_url, and extra_context, leaving several parameters underspecified in both schema and description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Send a natural-language message through the same auto-router the GUI uses.' The routing detail makes it distinct from thread-reading, approval, and workflow-run siblings, even though it doesn't name them.

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?

Gives explicit routing context: auto default, forced debate, single/backend pin, and when implement/install stays plan-only. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives or say when to use chat_get/chat_approve instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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