localsend_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but omits important behavioral aspects: that the operation waits for recipient acceptance (timeout), may require a PIN, uses a default port/protocol, and could fail if the device is unreachable. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is too thin to adequately prepare an agent for the tool's runtime behavior.

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 that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is only partially complete. It explains what is sent and to whom, but does not cover the handshake process, potential prompts, or the blocking nature with timeout. The schema covers parameter specifics, but the overall workflow context is missing, leaving an agent to infer that sending may be asynchronous or interactive.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only referencing 'files, folders, or text/clipboard snippets' which maps to the 'files' and 'text' parameters. Since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Send'), the resource types (files, folders, text/clipboard snippets), and the target context (LocalSend device on LAN by alias or IP). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like localsend_devices (which lists devices) and localsend_status (which checks status).

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 when to use it (when you want to send content) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions like discovering devices first (localsend_devices) or checking status (localsend_status). It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as if the target device is not on the LAN.

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