sendMessageFeishu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only covers basic functionality. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, what happens on success/failure, or whether messages are delivered synchronously/asynchronously. For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that packs essential information about targets, parameters, and content format. Every element serves a purpose, though the Chinese/English mix and technical density could be slightly improved for clarity.

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 5-parameter messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core functionality adequately but lacks important context. It explains what parameters do but doesn't address authentication needs, error handling, response format, or integration considerations that would help an agent use it effectively.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the relationship between receive_id_type and receive_id, listing all msg_type options, and providing a concrete example for content parameter. It adds substantial meaning beyond the minimal schema documentation, though doesn't cover the uuid parameter.

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 clearly states the verb ('发送一条消息' - send a message) and the resource ('飞书 IM' - Feishu IM), specifying it can send to various targets (chat/user/email/open_id/union_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listMessagesFeishu and replyMessageFeishu by focusing on sending new messages rather than listing or replying to existing ones.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the different receive_id_type options and msg_type support, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sendCardFeishu or replyMessageFeishu. It provides technical parameters but lacks explicit guidance on use-case scenarios or prerequisites.

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