agent_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses persistence to memory.json mailbox, immediate wake if the receiver is blocked on inbox_wait, retention for later polling if the receiver is not waiting, optional vector-memory sedimentation, and return of a message id. These are meaningful side effects and lifecycle behaviors beyond what the schema states.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds a distinct fact: persistence, wake behavior, retention, optional memory side effect, and return id. The '兼容保留' parenthetical and run-on formatting make it slightly harder to parse, so it is not maximally concise.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, persistence, wake semantics, retention behavior, optional parameters, and the returned message id. It omits error handling, ack behavior, and exact response shape, but those are secondary for a straightforward send-to-inbox operation.

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?

The schema documents kind, topic, memory, and priority, and the description adds at least one non-obvious semantic: memory=true triggers automatic sedimentation into vector memory. The required to/from/body are not elaborated, but their meaning is clear from their names, and the description partially compensates for the 57% schema coverage without redundantly restating field definitions.

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 opens with a clear action: '发一条消息到某 agent 收件箱' (send a message to an agent's inbox), and further specifies persistence, wake behavior, optional fields, and return value. It clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling bus_send or the inbox_read/inbox_wait/inbox_ack family, so it stops short of a 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?

The description provides behavioral context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions real-time wake with inbox_wait, which implies a use case, but it never tells the agent when to prefer agent_send_message over bus_send or how it relates to inbox_read/ack. The '兼容保留' hint is too indirect to count as routing guidance.

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