dooray_messenger

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'send message' implying a side effect, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it adds no extra explanatory detail that could make it more helpful.

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?

The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose, but lacks details about what the operation returns, how recipients are identified, and any usage context. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'to' (recipient organizationMemberId) and 'message' (message to send). The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema alone adequately documents the parameters, warranting the baseline score.

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 'send message to dooray messenger' uses a specific verb (send) and resource (dooray messenger), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on projects, calendars, and posts, not messaging.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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