send_file_message

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains parameters and return value but lacks details on destructive potential, permissions, file size limits, or what happens if the file does not exist. Minimal transparency beyond basic purpose.

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 concise with a one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Front-loaded with the core purpose, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It misses details like prerequisites (e.g., Messages app running) or error handling specifics, but is generally complete for use.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: recipient as phone/email or chat id, path as existing local file, message as optional text, recipient_type as handle/chat. This is useful but still brief.

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 ('Send a file attachment with Messages') and identifies the target resource ('handle or chat id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_imessage' which sends text-only messages.

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 context for when to use this tool (to send file attachments), but does not explicitly exclude text-only messages or mention alternative tools like 'send_imessage'. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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