send_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (send plain text) without any information about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, failure behavior, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap; the description adds nothing beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. The action is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but provides the core functionality. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it versus sibling tools, and it does not describe return values or error conditions. Given the presence of five siblings, additional context on selection would improve completeness.

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?

The schema describes the single parameter 'content' as '消息文本内容' (message text content), which covers its meaning. The description does not add any additional context about the parameter, such as formatting, length limits, or encoding. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds no extra value.

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 action: sending a plain text message to a Feishu group. It identifies the resource (Feishu group) and the content type (plain text), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_image or send_markdown. The verb 'send' and resource are explicit, making the purpose 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 implies usage for plain text messages but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like send_markdown or send_card. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions. While the tool name and description make the intent clear, the lack of explicit guidance on selecting this over siblings leaves the agent to infer.

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