localsend_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, what happens on success/failure, authentication requirements, error states, or side effects (e.g., overwriting files). The description only states the surface-level action, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context. Score 2 reflects this significant gap.

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?

Description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target formats. However, it could be structured into a brief usage paragraph without losing clarity. Score 4 for appropriate conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks essential context such as how the transfer works, what return values to expect, or how to interpret the parameters. For a multi-parameter tool, the description should provide an overview of the transfer flow. Score 2 indicates incomplete contextual coverage.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The overall description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it summarizes the target format but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and the description does not elevate beyond that. Score 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 action (send) and the resource (file paths to a LocalSend target). It specifies the target formats (alias, IP, host:port, or URL), which is precise. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'localsend_scan', though the verb 'send' vs 'scan' makes the distinction clear. A score of 4 reflects good clarity without explicit sibling differentiation.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when to choose 'localsend_send' over 'localsend_scan'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and verb. This lack of usage guidelines lowers the score to 2.

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