发送HTML消息

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 only notes template=html and format of content; it does not disclose whether this is a mutating action, side effects, recipient limitations, how the HTML is delivered, whether the message is sent to the specified channel, or that it requires authentication. '发送' implies a send operation but does not explain behavior beyond that.

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 only one short sentence and directly states the core behavior. It is front-loaded with the key differentiator (HTML format). It loses a point because it does not mention the several important parameters that affect usage, but it is concise and readable.

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?

Given the high number of sibling send tools and the even higher number of total sibling tools, this description is too minimal for an agent to know when to use it. It fails to mention channel requirements, required versus optional parameters, whether the content must be valid HTML, and what the response contains. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks essential context for successful invocation.

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 every parameter has a schema description. The tool description adds the detail that content is HTML-formatted and template=html, which is slightly beyond the schema description '消息内容（HTML格式）'. However, the description adds no new meaning about the other params (to, pre, title, topic, channel) beyond what the schema already states, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource (sending an HTML-formatted push message) and explicitly notes template=html)Skip; however, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling send_push_message or send_text_message/send_markdown_message/send_json_message. The tool is one of several message senders, so without explicit differentiation the agent has to infer that HTML formatting is the unique feature.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of send_text_message, send_markdown_message, send_json_message, or batch_send_message. The description simply implies HTML formatting without stating scenarios or exclusions. Sibling tools share the 'send' domainchended, so the agent is left without routing help.

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