send_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It only explains parameter meanings and omits details like file size limits, error handling, required permissions, or what happens on failure. The return value is not described despite an output schema existing.

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 short and well-organized, with a clear paragraph followed by an Args list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers basic usage but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. It is minimally complete for functional use but not robust.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by clarifying channel formats (name, ID, @username), file_path as absolute path, and message as optional. However, it does not specify whether file_path refers to a local or remote resource.

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 tool sends files (image, document, etc.) to a channel or user, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling text-sending tools like send_message_in_channel and send_direct_message.

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 explains how to specify the channel and file path, and mentions optional message. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for sending files vs. text, though the context is implied.

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