qwen_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It states that the call returns immediately and queued follow-ups are not awaited, adding critical nuance about asynchronous behavior. It also explains how results surface via qwen_reply, making the operation's effects clear.

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 and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then states constraints, then behavioral details, and ends with a clarifying note. Every sentence adds information without redundancy or verbosity, achieving high informational density.

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 complexity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use it, when not, how it behaves, and where results appear. It also points to qwen_running for session management, making it self-contained for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful extra context, such as the note that a follow_up is delivered but its answer is not awaited, which clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema. This raises the score to 4.

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 tool's function: 'Deliver a message into a qwen turn that is executing right now.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the transport restriction ('stream' vs 'print') and when to use qwen_reply instead. The core purpose is unambiguous and unique among the listed tools.

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 explicitly delineates when to use this tool versus alternatives: it works only on 'stream' runs, cannot reach 'print' runs, and handles finished sessions via qwen_reply. It also directs agents to qwen_running for session discovery. These are concrete, actionable criteria for tool selection.

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