send_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only lists supported features (color, Markdown, buttons) but does not mention any side effects, requirements (e.g., authentication, group context), potential errors, or what the response looks like. For a send operation, this lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about outcomes and prerequisites.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and mentions the key capabilities. There is no wasted text, and every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool does. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and features. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and any mention of how the target group is determined (since no group parameter exists). It also does not specify any limitations or edge cases. The description is adequate but leaves several operational gaps that an agent might need to know.

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 five parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reiterating that the title bar is colorable, content is Markdown, and buttons are supported. This is redundant with the schema descriptions and does not clarify parameter relationships, format expectations, or defaults beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 a specific action ('send an interactive card message to a Feishu group') and identifies the resource (a card). It mentions key capabilities (colorable title bar, Markdown body, bottom buttons), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text or send_markdown. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it misses the top score for explicit differentiation.

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 implies usage for sending interactive cards but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over send_markdown, send_post, or others. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations. The context is inferable from the tool name and description but not stated, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear guidance.

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