rba_send_lua_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds minimal context (file originates from workspace, targets connected clients) but does not explain side effects, default target behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and object, achieving maximum conciseness. Being short is acceptable because any missing information is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the complete absence of annotations and output schema, combined with 0% parameter coverage, makes this description inadequate for correct invocation. The agent is left unsure about target semantics, file path format, and expected behavior, creating significant gaps in a real usage scenario.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'path' (beyond the obvious notion of a file location) and completely omits any mention of 'target' and its possible values ('all', 'first', integer). The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving them ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('send') with a clear resource ('Lua file from the RBA workspace') and recipient ('connected development clients'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_send_lua (which likely sends code snippets) and rba_execute_file (which executes files) by focusing on transmission to clients.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as rba_send_lua or rba_execute_file. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clients must be connected) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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