发送Markdown消息

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'send push message' and template=markdown. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure/error behavior, or what happens when optional recipient/channel fields are omitted.

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?

One sentence, immediately states the action and format, and contains no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

The input schema fully documents the six parameters and required field, which covers invocation details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out when to prefer this over sibling message-sending tools and what behavior/return to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; template=markdown is an API implementation detail rather than a clarification of the six parameters.

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 a specific action ('发送' / send), a resource (push message), and a format (Markdown), and adds template=markdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as send_text_message and send_html_message.

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 Markdown-format qualifier implies this tool should be chosen when the content is Markdown, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like send_text_message or send_push_message.

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