send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at asynchronous queuing rather than immediate delivery, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, deprecation risk, or execution guarantees.

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. It is concise, though the terseness leaves important behavioral and usage details unstated.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a no-annotation tool with two undocumented required parameters. It omits usage differentiation, parameter meaning, side effects, and deprecation guidance, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps 'message' to 'prompt' and 'session_id' to 'session', providing no format, constraints, or session identifier semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('queue a prompt for a session'), but calling it a 'legacy helper' adds ambiguity and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as submit_goal or execute_run. An agent can infer roughly what it does but not clearly why it exists alongside alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. 'Legacy helper' hints that it may be deprecated, but this is not stated as a rule, so the agent has no reliable selection criteria.

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