send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: long messages are automatically split. However, it omits other important behaviors such as permission requirements, error handling, or whether sending is permanent/destructive. This is partial transparency.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the behavioral note appended. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on usage, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The auto-split detail is useful but insufficient for reliable invocation.

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. It does not explain the server_id, channel_id, or content parameters beyond their names. The auto-split note implicitly relates to content but doesn't specify format or limits. The description adds no value over the schema's basic names/types.

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 uses the specific verb 'send' with the resource 'message to a specific Discord channel', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_servers, get_channels, and read_messages. It immediately conveys the tool's core action and target.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention read_messages for reading, nor does it explain any preconditions like needing server/channel IDs. The description simply states the action without usage context or exclusions.

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