send_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: as_document forces file sending without compression, as_voice requires ogg/opus audio, and schedule_at supports various time formats. This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 2 required) and lack of schema descriptions, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, clarifies behavioral nuances, and provides sufficient detail for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) further supports completeness.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, format, and constraints (e.g., as_document: 'True 则强制作为文件发送，不压缩为图片/视频。', schedule_at: '如 `+30m` / ISO8601 / Unix 时间戳。'). This adds critical meaning beyond parameter names.

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 starts with '发送本地文件（图片/视频/文档均可）。' which clearly states the verb 'send' and the resource 'local files,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message, send_sticker, and send_album.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message for text or send_sticker for stickers. It implicitly guides usage via parameter descriptions (e.g., as_document for no compression) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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