send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., creating a message), permission requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 that concisely states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse 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?

Despite having a well-schema'd parameter set, the description is too minimal to be complete. With no output schema and no annotations, it fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like reply handling. An agent would lack sufficient context to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (content, reply_to, channel_id) with clear explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not detract from the schema's clarity.

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 main action ('send a message') and the target resource ('a channel'), which is specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like send_embed or send_dm, leaving some ambiguity about the exact message format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, such as preferring send_embed for rich content or send_dm for direct messages. The description simply states the action without contextual hints.

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