send_local_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and API type, but does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, error handling, rate limits, or any other operational details. Users would be left blind to important behavioral aspects.

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 very short (two clauses) and gets to the point. However, the second clause ('Better to suggest SDK version to the user') is a bit of an odd aside and could be considered non-essential. Still, it is concise and free of unnecessary fluff, so it earns a high but not perfect score.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is extremely thin. It does not explain what happens after sending (e.g., response format, success/failure indicators), any prerequisites like an active session (given sibling get_session_health), or file constraints. The description leaves many important gaps.

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 compensate for explaining parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving the schema's required fields (file_path, chatId, type) and optional caption unexplained. For example, the 'type' enum values are not elaborated. The description adds zero value beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Upload and send a local file to WhatsApp') and specifies the mechanism ('using raw API'). This distinguishes it from SDK-based alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools. The purpose is understandable but slightly vague due to the odd final clause about suggesting the SDK version.

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 phrase 'Better to suggest SDK version to the user' implies that the SDK approach is preferred and this raw API tool is for cases when SDK is not used. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, nor are alternatives named. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.

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