发送推送消息

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: sending is an outbound, effectively irreversible action, yet nothing is said about delivery semantics, rate limits, auth/send-limit constraints, or what happens when 'timestamp' has expired. The one behavioral rule it gives (pushId for form/doc/excel/webdiff) merely restates the schema's own pushId description.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the purpose is stated first and the constraint second. It is arguably under-specified for a 13-parameter tool, but on pure conciseness and structure it is efficient.

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 a 13-parameter, high-branching send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it does not help the agent choose among the many send_* siblings or explain the interaction between to/topic/channel/webhook/option, all of which the agent must reconstruct from schema text alone.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the schema already documents channel enums, topic/to mutual exclusion, webhook option equivalence, and the pushId condition. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema says, so the 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?

It names a specific verb+resource ('发送推送消息') and the backing endpoint ('通过 pushplus /send 接口'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the specialized siblings send_text_message, send_html_message, send_markdown_message, or send_json_message, leaving the generic-vs-specialized choice implicit.

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 only conditional given is 'form/doc/excel/webdiff 模板必须传 pushId', which is a parameter rule rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this tool over the sibling send_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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