send_url_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter with a default of 10 seconds, which hints at a waiting behavior, but doesn't explain what happens during that wait (e.g., for delivery confirmation). It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or what a 'link card' entails (e.g., preview generation). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it starts with the purpose ('发送链接卡片'), then lists all parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 complexity (a sending tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps in usage context and behavioral transparency.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter in Chinese: url (required link address), friends (optional recipient(s) as single name or list), message (optional additional text), and timeout (optional wait time, default 10 seconds). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify formats (e.g., what constitutes a valid friend name).

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 purpose: '发送链接卡片' (send link card). It specifies the action (send) and resource (link card), which is specific enough to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_message or send_image, which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists parameters but doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other sending tools (e.g., send_message for text, send_image for images). There's no context about use cases or exclusions.

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