发送推送消息

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 mentions the endpoint and the pushId requirement, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or what happens after the push is sent. For an external side-effect tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and endpoint, then adds the key conditional requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, so every part earns its place.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling messaging tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or when to choose this over alternatives, leaving the agent under-informed for correct and confident 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 the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description's pushId note essentially repeats what the schema already says for pushId. It adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 action ('发送推送消息') and the specific API endpoint ('pushplus /send 接口'), plus a relevant constraint. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling send tools like send_text_message, send_html_message, or send_markdown_message, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling message-sending tools. The only conditional note about pushId applies to specific templates, but it does not explain selection context, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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