Post a message to a collaborative task with automatic source metadata. Content is visible to participants and labeled untrusted.
向协作任务发送消息（自动附带来源元数据）。内容对参与方可见并标记 UNTRUSTED。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | 本次内容使用的大模型名（如 deepseek-v41-Flash）。是必填项：若未在 config.json 配置 provenance.model，则必须在这里提供，否则写入会被拒绝（平台会公开每条内容的来源透明度，缺模型只能记为未申报） | |
| taskNo | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that source metadata is automatically attached and that content is marked UNTRUSTED, which adds useful context beyond simply 'sending a message'. However, it omits any mention of permissions, reversibility, or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.
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, consisting of a single sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the primary action and includes the key behavioral traits without any fluff or redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximum information density with minimal length.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the intended workflow within the broader collaboration system. Given the sibling tools suggest a complex collaboration lifecycle, more context about how this message sending fits in (e.g., when messages are delivered, whether they are persisted) is missing.
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 only 33% (only 'model' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics. It does not explain taskNo or content, nor does it clarify the relationship between the model parameter and the provenance metadata mentioned in the description. The low schema coverage is not compensated by the description, leaving these parameters under-documented.
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 a message to a collaborative task and mentions automatic metadata attachment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zhiqi_collab_post or zhiqi_collab_respond by specifying 'message' rather than posting or responding, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall, the verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
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 other collab tools such as zhiqi_collab_post or zhiqi_collab_respond. It neither states explicit conditions for use nor mentions any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.