send_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action of sending files but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, file size restrictions, supported file types, whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately brief at two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains parameters efficiently. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating purpose from parameter explanations more clearly.

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 file-sending mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers basic parameters but misses critical context: what the tool returns, error conditions, file constraints, authentication requirements, and how it differs from similar tools like send_directory_files. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for all three parameters: filepath (supports comma-separated multiple files), who (optional recipient), and exact (default false, exact matching). This compensates somewhat but lacks details like filepath format, who identifier format, or what 'exact matching' means in practice. The baseline would be 1 without this information, so the added value raises it to 3.

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 verb '发送' (send) and resource '文件' (files), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like send_message, send_image, and send_url_card by specifying files rather than other content types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from send_directory_files, which could be confusing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose send_files over send_directory_files or send_image, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for file sending. The only contextual hint is the optional 'who' parameter, but this isn't framed as usage guidance.

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