发送JSON消息

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses only that a JSON push message is sent. It does not state whether content must be valid JSON, whether authentication or tokens are required, whether the send is synchronous, or what failure behavior looks like.

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?

A single concise sentence with a parenthetical implementation note. No filler; the key operation and format are front-loaded.

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?

For an action-style send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance relative to many send_* siblings and does not explain the JSON template behavior well enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the JSON template usage, which matches the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: '发送JSON格式的推送消息' (send JSON-format push message), and adds the concrete implementation detail 'template=json'. It is distinguishable from sibling send_text_message, send_html_message, and send_markdown_message by format, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 for when to prefer this tool over send_push_message, send_text_message, send_html_message, send_markdown_message, or batch_send_message. The only implied signal is the word 'JSON', and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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