send_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the action and channel (send via Telegram) but does not disclose potential behaviors like file size limits, error handling, or whether the operation blocks until delivery. This is a moderate gap for a send operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, usage timing, and content type. It lacks detail on return behavior, but that is not critical for this type of tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both artifact_path and caption described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 tool sends an artifact (screenshot, recording, or file) via Telegram, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_telegram_message by explicitly focusing on non-text content.

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 provides clear timing guidance ('Use after capturing UI screenshots or generating visual content'), implying when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools.

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