can_send_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Check if can send' implies a read-only capability probe, but it does not clarify side effects, required connection state, or how the result is expressed. With no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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 short sentence with no redundant filler and is reasonably front-loaded. It is slightly awkward in phrasing but earns its place; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.

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?

Although the tool is low-complexity with no parameters, there is no output schema and no annotation safety profile. The description does not explain what the caller receives (e.g., a boolean, a result code) or what conditions affect the answer, leaving the agent to infer essential call semantics.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is completely empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, this is appropriately scored.

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 ('check') and target ('voice record'), so the basic operation is clear. It does not state the scope (friend/group) or explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling can_send_image, but the resource type is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as can_send_image or send_* tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or a stated pattern like 'call before sending a voice message.'

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