send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it shows the basic action of sending a message, it doesn't describe delivery guarantees, latency, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens when sending to 'all' recipients. For a communication tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with just one sentence that combines purpose statement with a concrete usage example. Every element earns its place - the action, target, and example parameters are all essential information presented without any wasted words.

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?

For a messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators, response format), doesn't address system behavior with different recipient types, and provides no context about message delivery mechanisms or limitations.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description's usage example shows parameter names but adds no meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 target ('to another agent'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'broadcast' or 'reply', which likely have overlapping communication functionality.

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 like 'broadcast' or 'reply'. The usage example shows parameter syntax but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific messaging tool.

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