多渠道批量发送消息

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: batch semantics, comma-separated channels, the 5-channel maximum, one-to-one option mapping, and pushId requirements. But it does not disclose failure behavior, partial-send outcomes, return value shape, or any authorization/rate-limit considerations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key constraints are stated directly and compactly.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only elaborates channel, option, and pushId. It omits guidance around result/error responses, how content interacts with templates, timestamp/callback behavior, and prerequisites for successful batch sending—leaving a significant completeness gap for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the 5-channel maximum, the strict one-to-one matching between channel and option, and the pushId requirement for specific templates—details not fully captured in the input schema.

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: using the pushplus /batchSend interface to send messages to multiple channels at once. This distinguishes it from the single-message sibling tools (send_text_message, send_push_message, etc.) by emphasizing multi-channel batch behavior, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for multi-channel batch sends, with concrete constraints such as a 5-channel limit, comma-separated channels, option-to-channel pairing, and mandatory pushId for certain templates. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the single-send siblings or when not to use it.

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