send_note

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 discloses when recipients receive the message (via get_board or read_notes), that it lands in an inbox with unread count and receipt, and that request_id makes retries idempotent (same sender/id/content returns original message, no duplicate). This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases before parameter details, uses compact section labels, and includes examples only where they add value. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 6-parameter messaging tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description thoroughly covers delivery behavior, idempotency, and almost all parameter semantics. The only gap is the undocumented 'project' parameter, so it is nearly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description documents five of six parameters with examples and constraints: agent, to (comma-separated or '*'), text, task, and request_id (idempotency). However, the 'project' parameter is entirely undocumented, which prevents a perfect score.

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 opens with '定向消息：给指定终端发一条点对点消息', specifying a clear verb, resource, and delivery semantics. It also explicitly contrasts with post_decision (广播 vs 定向), so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening schemas.

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 names concrete use cases (派活、报缺陷、接口变更通知、要回执的协调) and explains the exact division of labor with post_decision: broadcast decisions go to shared bulletin, while directed notes go to inbox with unread count and receipt. This gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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