send_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send a voice message' discloses none of the important behavioral traits: no indication of whether this mutates state, what prerequisites exist (e.g., valid file path, supported audio formats), whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like.

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 extremely short and could be considered front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no useful operational detail beyond restating the tool's name and basic intent.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, yet the description provides no additional context. It fails to distinguish this from the many sibling file/message tools and omits any mention of prerequisites, return behavior, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it reliably.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not explain that chat_id is the target conversation, what file_path should reference, or what formats/locations are acceptable. With two required parameters and zero enrichment, the agent must guess at their semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a voice message.' This makes the tool's basic function identifiable, and the name aligns well with the described action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like send_file or send_message, so the scope is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_file, send_message, or schedule_message. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and brief description, with no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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