send-message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns immediately and the response is generated asynchronously, plus directs to how to retrieve the result. However, it does not disclose what the immediate return value contains (e.g., message ID), which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately clarifies async behavior and alternatives. No filler or redundant information; every clause adds value.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear usage flow: send async, then poll or use blocking alternatives. It mentions existing chat and optional attachments, covering key prerequisites. However, it omits specifics about the immediate return value and potential error conditions, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that attachments are optional and that chat_id refers to an existing chat, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., attachment structure, ai_name vs model_type).

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 the tool sends a message (prompt) with optional file attachments to an existing chat and returns immediately. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the asynchronous nature and naming alternatives (wait-for-response, ask, stream-message), making it easy to select.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use this for async non-blocking send, poll with wait-for-response, or use ask/stream-message for a single blocking call. This directly addresses selection criteria and excludes other tools.

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