mass_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait (the @all scope limitation), but it omits other important details such as required permissions, possible rate limits, or error handling. The note adds value but is not comprehensive.

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, using only two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, the scope caveat is clearly separated, and there is no filler or redundant text.

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 simple messaging tool, the description covers the primary purpose and an important scope caveat. However, it lacks parameter semantics and does not mention the output behavior (though an output schema exists). The note about the visible scope is valuable, but the overall completeness is moderate.

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%, and the description provides no information about the 'content', 'agent_id', or 'msg_type' parameters. It only mentions the sending behavior, leaving the agent without guidance on how to properly populate the parameters.

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 tool sends mass messages to all members within the app's visible scope (touser=@all). It uses a specific verb (send) and resource (mass message), and the scope limitation distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific users or departments.

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 includes a clear note about the @all scope limitation and explicitly instructs that to reach the whole enterprise, the app's visible scope must be set to the root department. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like send_text_message for targeted sending.

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