Send Chat Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the call is asynchronous and 'returns immediately' with thread/run ids plus a web URL. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the branching condition and the next-step workflow. No redundant or filler 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still succinctly characterizes the immediate return (ids and URL) and the async polling pattern, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing.

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 model, message, thread_id, and recursion_limit are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the thread_id omit-vs-continue semantics but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to a DeerFlow thread and start a run') and immediately differentiates the two modes of operation via the thread_id parameter, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like deerflow_run_status or deerflow_research.

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?

Explicitly names when to omit vs. pass thread_id and routes the agent through the follow-up workflow ('poll deerflow_run_status, then deerflow_get_report'), naming the sibling tools to use next. This is exactly the when/how guidance an agent needs.

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