send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'send' without explaining side effects, prerequisites (such as having a valid join_token), or consequences of sending. The phrase 'in the joined topic' hints at the requirement but lacks explicit detail about what happens if not joined.

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 with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. While the output schema covers return values, the description omits necessary context like the role of join_token, the meaning of verbosity, and the behavior for include_self. It is adequate for a simple send action but leaves gaps for effective invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'recipient' via 'direct or broadcast', but it does not explain the required 'join_token', 'body', or the optional 'verbosity' and 'include_self'. This leaves most parameters semantically under-defined.

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 specifies the action (send), the object (message), and the scope (in the joined topic). It distinguishes between direct and broadcast modes, which aligns with the 'recipient' parameter and differentiates from sibling tools like read_messages.

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 implies the tool is for sending messages within a joined topic, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or situations where it should not be used, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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