send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether a connection must be established first, whether sending is synchronous or returns a receipt, potential failure modes, or whether the message is durable. For a send operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately short given that the schema documents the parameters. Efficient but on the edge of being too minimal.

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?

This is a messaging tool with 4 params and no annotations or output schema. The description only states the action but doesn't explain behavioral expectations around the connection lifecycle, delivery guarantees, or return values. Given the sibling set includes publish_message and consume_message, some guidance on how this differs would materially 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description itself adds little beyond the schema. The destination parameter already explains the /queue/ and /topic/ conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource pattern: 'Send a message to a queue or topic'. It names the primary resource and the action. However, it doesn't distinguish from closely related siblings like publish_message or consume_message, which weakens sibling differentiation slightly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use send_message vs alternatives like publish_message (which appears to be a sibling for publishing to brokers). There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection must be active), nor exclusions. The description gives no usage context at all.

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