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 states the action and format; it does not disclose side effects, delivery behavior, recipient handling, authentication requirements, or whether the message is actually sent immediately. This is a significant gap for a sending tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information: the action, the format, and the template identifier.

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 large sibling set of send_* tools, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It lacks guidance on expected results, channel behavior, or distinctions from closely related message-sending tools, so an agent cannot confidently decide when this tool is the right choice.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the template=html detail, which is useful context, but it does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (发送/send), the resource (推送消息/push message), and the distinguishing format (HTML格式), explicitly noting template=html. This differentiates it from sibling tools like send_text_message and send_markdown_message based on the message format.

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: use this tool when you need to send an HTML-formatted push message. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over send_text_message, send_markdown_message, send_json_message, or send_push_message, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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