push_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 adds meaningful behavioral details: msg must be non-empty, timeout must be a positive integer millisecond value, and the return value is a dict containing a message id. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or visibility scope of the pushed message.

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 well-structured with clear sections: scenario, notes, args, and returns. Every section is concise and adds value, with no filler, tautology, or redundant repetition.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, constraints, parameter semantics, and return shape. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about using push_error_message for error-related messages, but otherwise the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining msg as message content and timeout as display duration in milliseconds with a default of 7000. It also adds constraints not present in the schema: msg must be non-empty and timeout must be a positive integer. It does not explicitly note that msg is required, but the schema already marks it required.

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 states a specific verb ('推送') and resource ('前台消息'), and adds a concrete scenario ('在写入流程中向前台反馈进度或结果'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling push_error_message.

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?

It explicitly names the intended context: during write flows, to report progress or results to the frontend. This provides clear usage context, but it does not say when not to use it or mention the sibling push_error_message as the alternative for error feedback.

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