send_markdown_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the WeCom client limitation and gives content examples. It fails to explain expected output, error behavior, whether recipients are required, or any side effects, leaving the tool's behavior largely opaque beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with a clear purpose and useful content examples. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or padding.

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 has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It covers only the content parameter and the client limitation, leaving recipient parameters and agent_id unexplained, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'content' parameter with formatting examples, but completely omits the semantic meaning of to_user, to_tag, to_party, and agent_id, leaving the recipient selection and configuration fields unexplained.

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's function: sending a Markdown message. The verb '发送' (send) is paired with the resource 'Markdown消息' (Markdown message), and it includes a specific constraint that only the WeCom client supports it. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_text_message by format, even though alternatives aren't named.

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 clear context for using the tool—Markdown messages—and includes a notable usage constraint: only the WeCom client supports it. This implies when not to use it (on other clients) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like send_text_message or mass_send_message. Thus it offers clear context plus an exclusion, meriting a 4.

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