chat_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: async operation, immediate return with a task_id, and the need to poll. This adequately informs the agent of the tool's core behavior, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and async nature immediately, then provides the return type and follow-up action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the async return, and the next step (polling). It does not describe edge cases or detailed response structure, but the mention of {task_id} provides sufficient context for an agent to proceed.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain 'chat_session_id' or 'message' beyond their obvious names, and no additional context is provided for how they should be used or formatted. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 the target ('chat's seat'), and explicitly notes the ASYNC behavior, which distinguishes it from synchronous tools like chat_poll. The reference to returning a task_id and polling via chat_poll further clarifies its role.

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 that this is an async send and that results are obtained by polling with chat_poll. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the directive to poll with chat_poll effectively indicates the expected workflow and distinguishes it from the chat_poll tool.

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