send_to_service

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers only the generic action of sending and receiving a response. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., state change on the service, rate limits, authentication requirements), whether the operation blocks, or what happens on errors. This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with external services.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target services. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no superfluous information.

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?

While the tool is simple and has complete schema coverage, the description lacks important context: it does not describe response format, synchronization behavior, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools in the workflow. The absence of annotations and output schema places the burden on the description, which is not fully met.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (service enum, content string). The description does not add any additional meaning, such as format constraints, examples, or service-specific behaviors. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: sending input to one of three named services and receiving a response. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_response (which retrieves responses) and web_automation_query (which queries the web), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context implies usage for sending content to supported services, but there is no guidance on how it fits with siblings like get_latest_response or initialize_browser, and no mention of prerequisites or fallback tools.

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