send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions InMail requirements but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, permission requirements, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects (e.g., notifications). For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential details (URN format and InMail subject requirement). However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter details.

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 complexity of a messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, auth needs), response expectations, and differentiation from sibling tools. While it covers basic purpose and some parameter hints, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying the URN format ('urn:li:fsd_profile:MEMBER_ID') and noting subject requirements for InMail, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Send a message') and target ('to a LinkedIn member'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from 'send_connection_request' (a sibling tool), missing an opportunity to clarify when to use messaging versus connection requests.

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 some implied usage guidance by mentioning 'For InMail, include a subject,' which suggests context for when the subject parameter is required. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like 'send_connection_request' or other communication tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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