send_local_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little: it does not say whether the file must exist on the local filesystem, whether size limits apply, what happens on failure, or that sending is a user-visible side effect. It also says nothing about notification behavior or the default chat target, both of which are governed by parameters the description ignores.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, and the bilingual duplication is a deliberate convention rather than padding. It is appropriately short, though the brevity is partly why key semantics are missing.

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 six-parameter messaging tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin: it explains neither the delivery target (chat_id), nor the caption/markup interplay, nor the inline button structure. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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% for the six top-level parameters: caption, chat_id, file_path, parse_mode, inline_buttons, and disable_notification are all undocumented in the schema. The description only adds that the input is a local file path, leaving chat_id resolution, parse_mode's effect on the caption, and the nested button structure entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('any local file ... as a general document') and enumerates examples (code, reports, logs, zip, pdf), which makes the tool's role clear against siblings like send_local_photo or send_local_video. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'any' and the file-type examples, suggesting this is the general-purpose fallback for files that aren't photos, video, or audio. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over send_local_photo/send_local_video/send_media_album, and no prerequisites (e.g., the path must exist on the server) are mentioned.

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