Send File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic upload action and optional message, and does not mention side effects, permissions, size limits, overwrite behavior, or what happens on failure—important context for a tool that creates remote state.

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?

One sentence front-loads the primary action and target, then adds the optional-message behavior. No filler or repetition; every word contributes.

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 three-parameter file-upload tool with an output schema, the description plus schema names/types is minimally sufficient. However, the absence of annotations, usage alternatives, and parameter detail means an agent would still need to infer some important invocation details.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It maps 'file' to file_path, 'channel/DM' to channel_id, and 'text message' to message, giving a basic semantic layer beyond the raw schema. It does not specify the expected format of file_path (e.g., local path vs URL) or the exact meaning of channel_id, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('a file to a channel/DM'), which clearly states what the tool does. It implicitly separates send_file from the sibling send_message by centering on file upload, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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 core use case is implied: use this when a file needs to be delivered to a channel or DM, with an optional text message. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer send_message or how to handle text-only messages, so the guidance is clear but not fully articulated.

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