Send a file

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

With only an openWorldHint annotation, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the album behavior and path types, but does not mention side effects such as creating a chat message, requiring authentication, or potential rate limits. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 at two sentences, immediately states the core purpose, and includes only relevant details about path types and album behavior. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only addresses the path parameter and the general send action. Key options like sending as photo/voice, captions, replies, and account selection are omitted, making the description insufficient for understanding the full scope of usage.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It explains the path parameter well, including local/URL distinction and album behavior, but leaves other parameters like silent, asPhoto, asVoice, caption, replyTo, and accountId unexplained. This partial compensation merits a mid-range score.

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 'Upload and send one or more files,' specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like send_message and send_story by focusing on files rather than text or stories.

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 usage context by explaining that paths can be local or HTTPS URLs and that multiple paths form an album. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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