send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It says only 'Send a message' with no information about side effects, permission requirements, delivery guarantees, error behavior, or any constraints. This is a complete lack of behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and effectively front-loaded with the verb. Every word serves a purpose.

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 presence of closely related sibling tools ('reply_to_message', 'get_recipients') and the schema, the description is too sparse to provide a complete picture. It lacks usage context and behavioral details, though the output schema does cover return value expectations, slightly reducing the burden.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline score. It does not clarify how 'reply_to_id' might relate to the sibling 'reply_to_message' tool.

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 a specific verb 'Send' with a clear resource 'message' and an audience ('a teacher or staff member'), making the basic purpose apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'reply_to_message', which could also be seen as sending a message, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_message'. It only states the action without contextual cues about when this is the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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