workers_chat_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the message mirrors into the user's forum topic, explains channel options (auto, bot, embed, topic) with behavioral context, states it is rate-limited, and notes the restriction on sending to arbitrary IDs. It lacks details on error handling or exact rate limits but covers key traits.

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 six short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, channel options, mirroring effect, requirements, limitation, and rate limit. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Efficiently front-loaded with the core action.

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 5 parameters and an output schema (unseen but present), the description covers purpose, channel behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and constraints. It references workers_chats_list for context. Missing: explicit return value description (though output schema may cover it), error conditions, and how to identify the chat from parameters, but overall sufficient for typical use.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'channel' parameter with values and behavior, and indicates that text and rr_id are related (at least one needed). However, 'user_id' and 'group_id' are not explained beyond their names, and the relationship between user_id/group_id and the known chat is unclear. Partial compensation only.

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 sends one message to a known chat from workers_chats_list, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workers_chats_list (which lists chats) and workers_broadcast_quote (broadcasting) by specifying it sends a single message to an already-known chat.

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 context for usage: it requires a chat from workers_chats_list, needs text and/or rr_id, and explicitly says it does not send to arbitrary Telegram IDs. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like workers_broadcast_quote or workers_readyreply_upsert, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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