send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only adds the dual-use behavior and parse_mode formatting details, but says nothing about delivery side effects, permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Extremely short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. The parse_mode detail is compact and useful, earning its place in only two lines.

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 mutating tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It lacks sibling differentiation, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not selection or usage completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents parse_mode values well, but leaves chat, text, silent, reply_to, and link_preview semantically unexplained, forcing the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and dual purpose: sending a text message and publishing a post to a channel. This clearly distinguishes send_message from siblings like send_file, edit_message, and delete_messages.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use send_message versus alternatives such as send_file, forward_messages, or bot_api. The phrase 'also used to publish a post to a channel' hints at one use case but does not establish selection criteria or exclusions.

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