send_directory_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending files but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens if files are large, if there are rate limits, or what the expected output is. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool that performs file operations.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It uses minimal sentences without waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters more clearly). Overall, it's efficient and to the point.

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 the tool's complexity (file operations with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sending' entails (e.g., via chat, email), potential errors, or return values. For a tool that interacts with files and recipients, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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?

The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'directory' is a path, 'who' is an optional recipient, and 'pattern' is a file matching pattern with default '*'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details or examples.

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 the purpose ('发送目录下的所有文件' - send all files in a directory) which is clear but vague. It specifies the action and resource but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_files' or 'send_image' that might handle similar file-sending operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'send_files' and 'send_image' available, there's no indication of when this directory-based sending is preferred over other file-sending methods.

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