client_sendMessage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, whether the message triggers read receipts, or any other behavioral traits. Sending a message is a mutation but no consequences are described.

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 with no wasted words. It clearly front-loads the primary action and is appropriately sized for its limited scope.

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 tool with complex parameters (content can be an object, contentType has multiple allowed values, options is an object), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to use contentType, what options are for, or the relationship between content and contentType. No output schema is provided, so the description should offer more context.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'message to a specific chatId', which is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like channel_sendMessage, which also sends a message but to a channel. The [Client] prefix gives some context but no explicit differentiation.

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 such as message_reply or channel_sendMessage. It simply states the action without mentioning appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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