xai_upload_file

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states the upload action and returns a dict with specific fields (file_id, filename, etc.). It does not discuss rate limits, file size limits, or overwrite behavior, but is adequate for a simple operation.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. No fluff, information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one required param, clear output schema described), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result with other tools (e.g., chat_with_files). No gaps.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only says 'Upload a local project file', adding minimal nuance beyond the parameter name 'file_path'. Baseline for 0 param description coverage is 4, but the description does not fully compensate; lacks details like path format or restrictions.

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 specifies the verb 'upload', the resource 'local project file to xAI's servers', and the purpose 'so it can be reference-attached in chats'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xai_get_file_content or xai_list_files.

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 indicates usage before chatting and notes the returned file_id can be used in chat_with_files or xai_get_file_content. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.

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