Send File

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

没有注解，因此描述承担了行为透明度的全部责任。它明确披露了操作不可逆，建议请求确认，并说明文件大小限制为100 MB。这些是有价值的操作背景，尽管没有涵盖权限或失败模式等细节。

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?

两句话，简洁且无冗余。第一句陈述核心操作，第二句提醒不可逆性并请求确认。所有内容都有具体价值，结构清晰。

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?

对于一个包含4个参数（其中2个必需）的工具，描述过于简短。它没有解释参数、没有给出与send_file_by_url的使用区别，也没有提供关于输出或失败情况的任何信息。关键上下文缺失。

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?

模式描述覆盖率为0%，而描述完全没有解释任何参数（path、caption、chat_id、file_name）。仅说"发送本地文件"，代理无法从描述中获得正确填充参数所需的含义，因此完全未弥补架构中的信息缺失。

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?

描述以明确的动词"Отправляет"开头，并指出了具体资源"локальный файл"（本地文件）和目的地"в чат"。还提供了大小限制（100 MB），这有助于区分该工具与通过URL发送文件的兄弟工具send_file_by_url。

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?

描述没有提供何时使用此工具以及何时使用替代工具的明确指导。它只是将行为与send_message比较，并提到不可逆性，但未说明与send_file_by_url的区别或适合使用此工具的条件。

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