send_file_content

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool is for server-only communication and the response (confirmation) should be displayed, not the file content. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not cover all behavioral aspects like error handling or idempotency.

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 structured with markdown headers and bullet points, making it scannable. It front-loads the critical warning. However, it is somewhat verbose by duplicating schema details, and some sentences could be combined.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key constraint, and parameters adequately for a file-sending tool. It could mention that the tool expects prior tool calls (like a request) for context, but it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter descriptions from the schema (path, content, etc.) without adding new semantic context. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage beyond the schema.

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 tool sends file content from the agent filesystem to a server, specifying the verb 'send', the resource 'file content', and the direction 'to server'. This distinguishes it from siblings that send other types of data (e.g., send_command_location, send_working_directory).

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 includes a strong usage guideline: 'Do NOT display the file content to the user. This tool is for server communication only.' This tells the agent when to use it (for server communication) and a critical 'when not to do' (display to user), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention prerequisites.

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