talk_send

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 explicitly states that the same requestId will not be sent repeatedly (idempotency), that messages are persistently queued when the receiver is busy/unavailable, that it never resends when the result is uncertain, and that files remain local. These are important side-effect and reliability traits that help the agent anticipate behavior.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then key behavioral guarantees. Each sentence adds value—no redundant or vague content. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior, idempotency, queuing, retry policy, and file locality. It implies the prerequisite of binding but does not explicitly state what happens if the conversation is not bound or how errors are surfaced. Overall, it is fairly complete but could explicitly mention the binding prerequisite.

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. It clarifies that 'prompt' and 'files' are the content sent, and that 'requestId' serves as an idempotency key. However, it does not explain the 'destination' parameter beyond implying it is the bound conversation, and it does not detail constraints like max file count or prompt length (though these are in the schema). Partial compensation is provided.

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 action: sending prompts and local file paths to a bound conversation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like talk_read, talk_list, and talk_create, which are read/list/create operations. The verb 'send' and resource 'bound conversation' are explicit and specific.

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 requiring a 'bound conversation' (已绑定的对话), suggesting a prerequisite to bind first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like talk_outbox or talk_delivery_control, nor does it provide exclusions. The idempotency and queuing behavior give operational guidance but not selection criteria.

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