put_message

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only that the message is a text message and targets a queue; it does not disclose behavioral details like whether the queue must already exist, whether the message is appended, or failure behavior. It provides minimal extra context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a terse parameter list. Every line provides useful information, with no filler or redundancy. The structure makes the purpose and parameters immediately scannable.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering mutation safety, the description adequately covers the action and all required parameters. It is mostly complete, but lacks guidance on when to use it instead of publish_message, and does not note any prerequisites such as the queue existing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section with concrete examples: qmgr as queue manager name (QM1), queue as queue name (DEV.QUEUE.1), and body as message body. This adds meaning the schema properties lack, though it omits constraints or format details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '向队列发送一条文本消息' (send a text message to a queue), clearly defining the operation. It also clarifies the message type. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling publish_message, which may also involve sending messages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_message, browse_message, or get_message. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where a different sibling should be chosen. Usage must be inferred entirely from the generic action described.

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