send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action (send) and target types, which implies a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the message will be delivered immediately, rate limits, or if sending to a channel requires special permissions. A score of 3 is reasonable as it conveys basic behavior without harmful omissions.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It could be considered slightly under-specified, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides basic coverage. However, it lacks any mention of return values or response format (e.g., success/error), and with no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the agent can expect back. This is a minor gap, resulting in a score of 3.

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 the purpose of 'chat', 'text', and 'reply_to'. The description adds no additional meaning or nuance beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource 'message', and specifies the target types (chat, channel, group). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'read_messages' or 'list_chats', which have very different purposes.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that this should be used for sending new messages, while 'reply_to' parameter implies replying, but no comparison to other tools like 'search_messages' or 'get_chat_info'.

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