send_local_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior: reading a local file and sending it via SMTP, and it adds valuable detail that subject and text-body are optional and default to the filename. It does not cover edge cases like file-not-found, permissions, or whether the send is irreversible, but the core side effect is clearly stated.

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 two compact clauses with no filler: purpose first, then default behavior. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must supply operational context. It explains the overall workflow and the default derivations for optional fields, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention response/error behavior, but that's not common for a send operation and the schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that subject and text are optional and derived from the filename when not provided, which is not in the schema. It thus enhances understanding of these two parameters beyond their field descriptions.

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 action: reads a local file from the server filesystem and sends it as an email attachment via SMTP. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_email, since it explicitly targets local file attachments. The verb 'liest' (reads) and 'verschickt' (sends) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for sending an existing server-side file as an attachment, with subject/body derived from the filename if omitted. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over send_email or any other sibling, nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used. The usage context must be inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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