message.send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, permission needs, rate limits, or what happens after a successful send; it only states the action and image parameter pathway.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action and message kinds. It is concise with no fluff, but the compressed phrasing makes the 'text 必填' statement ambiguous and omits important context that additional sentences could have provided.

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?

Even with an output schema available, this tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a 0%-coverage schema description. The single sentence does not clarify what cid/toid represent, when item_id is needed, or what the send operation requires, leaving critical calling context missing.

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 and 8 parameters, the description adds useful conditional guidance: text messages use 'text', image messages use url plus width/height. However, it does not explain the required cid/toid identifiers, and 'text 必填' is at best conditional and conflicts with the schema's default and required list.

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?

Description states the verb '发送消息' (send message), the resource '会话' (conversation), and content types text/image, clearly identifying this as the send tool among the message.* siblings. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and the line 'text 必填' adds slight ambiguity, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 explains when to use this tool instead of message.history, message.list-chats, message.watch, or media.upload. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'send message', leaving the agent to infer context.

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