uploader_fichier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'validation' vaguely. It doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes), authentication needs, rate limits, error responses, or what 'validation' entails (e.g., file type checks). The description is insufficient for a tool with potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful detail ('validation') without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a file upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutating nature, error handling), usage context, and expected outcomes. The mention of 'validation' is vague and doesn't compensate for the missing structured information.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying file upload and validation, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Upload un fichier local') and target ('vers un canal Discord'), specifying it's a file upload to a Discord channel. It distinguishes from siblings like 'envoyer_message' (send message) by focusing on file uploads, though it doesn't explicitly mention validation as a differentiator.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While 'validation' hints at error handling, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bot permissions), constraints (e.g., file size limits), or when to choose other tools like 'send_webhook' for file sharing.

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