azeth_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, description bears full disclosure burden. It successfully documents idempotency ('NOT idempotent'), authentication source ('AZETH_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable'), size limits ('10,000 characters'), and return values ('conversation ID and recipient address'). Only misses error handling or rate limiting details.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: Purpose, Usage condition, Prerequisites, Return values, and Important notes. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose but justified given complexity (4 parameters, encryption context, prerequisites) and absence of annotations.

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?

Comprehensive for a messaging tool with no output schema and no annotations. Covers prerequisites (reachability), behavioral constraints (idempotency, length limits), authentication method, and return structure. No significant gaps given the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by consolidating the 'to' field syntax options into narrative context ('accepts: an Ethereum address...') and providing a concrete JSON example showing parameter usage patterns beyond raw schema definitions.

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 specific action ('Send an encrypted message'), target resource ('participant'), and network ('XMTP'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'azeth_receive_messages' by directionality and 'azeth_check_reachability' by being the actual messaging action versus a prerequisite check.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' clause defining the communications use case. Names specific prerequisite tool ('azeth_check_reachability first if unsure') for recipient verification, clearly delineating the workflow sequence.

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