send_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior beyond the schema: parse_mode values, the as_voice/as_video_note/force_document transformation modes, and ffprobe-based video dimension/duration enrichment. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, file-size/format restrictions, or error behavior.

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 one compact sentence with parameter semantics delivered in dash-separated clauses. The main action and file types are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place without filler or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists and the description already covers all optional-mode flags and a subtle video-enrichment behavior, the tool is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke. The remaining gaps, such as chat identifier format, path requirements, and failure modes, are minor compared with the covered aspects.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining caption, parse_mode, as_voice, as_video_note, and force_document with concrete effects. The two required parameters, chat and path, are only named in the schema, but their meaning is largely self-evident from the 'local file' context and common API conventions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'send local file (photo/video/document/audio)'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like send_message (text) and download_media (retrieve files), so an agent can select it by purpose.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the 'local file' wording, and the parameter explanations clarify modes, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer send_file over send_message or other siblings, nor does it give exclusions or preconditions.

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