send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains message type semantics, broadcast behavior via to_agent=None, the requirement for from_agent, and that system messages are auto-generated. It does not cover delivery guarantees, persistence, or side effects, but for a communication tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 well-structured with clear headers and bullet lists, and most content earns its place. There is some redundancy: message type definitions appear in both AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS and MESSAGE TYPES. Still, the organization aids agent parsing and scanning.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential call context: when to use it, what message types exist, and how to fill each parameter. It does not describe the response/return value, which could matter without an output schema, and it lacks alternative routing. However, the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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. The PARAMETERS section adds meaning to all six parameters, including broadcast semantics for to_agent, required-ness for from_agent, and listing msg_type values. Some descriptions remain terse (e.g., 'Target session'), but overall it 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message to a collaboration session.' It clearly distinguishes this as the communication/send tool from sibling tools like read_messages, poll_messages, and grep_messages. The 'Core communication tool' framing reinforces its role.

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 explicit AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS listing when to call this tool (assigning work, returning results, asking questions, etc.) and a workflow position ('Use throughout the session for all agent communication'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like read_messages for reading, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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