发送文本消息

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the message type and a vague 'quick' claim; it does not mention recipient defaults, channel behavior, member-only pre-processing, or side effects of sending.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the template=txt detail is an efficient discriminator.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description leaves several gaps: result behavior, default recipient resolution, channel defaults, and authorization requirements are not addressed. The complete parameter schema partially compensates, making this minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond template=txt and 'plain text'; it does not meaningfully extend the parameter explanations already present in the 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 a specific action (send), a concrete resource (plain text push message), and an identifying template value (template=txt). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like send_html_message, send_markdown_message, and send_json_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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase '纯文本' and the template=txt identifier. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as send_push_message or batch_send_message, nor any when-not statements.

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