send_voice

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 auto-conversion to SILK format, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like error handling, rate limits, or success confirmation.

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 concise with three short paragraphs, no wasted sentences. The Args section is redundant but adds clarity. Well-structured and front-loaded with the main 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or error states. It covers conversion behavior and target types, but lacks completeness for a sending action (e.g., success signals, failure conditions).

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: target is group ID or friend QQ ID, audio is base64-encoded without the prefix, and target_type defaults to 'group'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's bare types.

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 action ('Send a voice message') and the target ('monitored group or whitelisted friend'), with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_message and send_image by focusing on voice.

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 (when you need to send a voice message) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It gives guidance on target_type (group vs private) but lacks exclusionary context.

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