reply

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

没有 annotations，因此描述承担了全部行为披露责任。描述主动说明了自动重试机制、失败后的默认回复兜底行为（发往控制室/owner 私聊），以及原路返回的逻辑，这些都是非显而易见的关键行为。

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?

描述短小精悍，三句话分别说明核心操作、chat_id 省略行为和重试/兜底机制，信息密度高且没有冗余。关键行为前置，结构清晰。

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?

对于发送消息类工具，描述配合完整 schema 已覆盖调用所需信息：目标房间、默认回退行为、重试和失败兜底。没有输出 schema 也不影响理解，整体上下文完整。

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?

Schema 描述覆盖率为 100%，所有参数在 schema 中已有说明。描述额外强调了 chat_id 省略时的行为，但 schema 中同样包含该信息，因此描述在参数语义上未显著超出 schema 提供的价值。

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?

描述明确说明该工具通过 Matrix 发送回复到指定房间，并解释了省略 chat_id 时的原路返回行为。动词和资源都很具体，与 list_rooms、room_info 等只读查询类兄弟工具形成清晰区分。

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?

描述清晰说明了何时使用该工具（发送回复）以及省略 chat_id 时的行为，但未明确提及何时不应使用或列举替代工具。整体使用场景清楚，只是缺少显式的排他性说明。

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