send_image

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 tool sends an image but doesn't describe what 'send' entails (e.g., via chat, email, or other means), whether it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 very concise—just two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameters. It's front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details).

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 complexity of a 'send' operation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like delivery method, success criteria, error handling, or integration context (e.g., which messaging platform), leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 explicitly lists both parameters ('filepath' and 'who') and provides brief semantic context ('图片路径' meaning 'image path' and '接收人，可选' meaning 'recipient, optional'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining format expectations (e.g., filepath syntax, who identifier format) or default behaviors beyond optionality.

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 ('发送图片' meaning 'send image') and identifies the resource (image), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'send_files' or 'send_message', which might have overlapping functionality in a messaging context.

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 like 'send_files' or 'send_message'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any exclusions that would help an agent choose between similar messaging tools.

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