sqs_send_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and destination, but does not mention any side effects, return values, or constraints (e.g., FIFO requirements, message limits, or synchronous behavior). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential information with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 simple send operation, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and target, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not mention important context like FIFO queue requirements (though the schema does) or what the tool returns, which could impact an agent's confidence in using it correctly.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expected.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('a message to an SQS queue'), and adds the LocalStack context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sqs_receive_messages, sqs_delete_message, and sns_publish by specifying the SQS queue target and the send action.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you want to send a message to an SQS queue. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., use sns_publish for topics), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the listed siblings.

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