Chat With File

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint, non-read-only, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the base64 encoding detail for the file, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as the optionality of the file or the nature of the response. With annotations present, the added value is moderate, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded, specific, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key constraint (base64 file attachment) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential action but omits details about the expected return value (e.g., the agent's reply) and does not elaborate on parameter interactions such as file requiring file_name. However, the schema fully documents all parameters and annotations cover side-effect expectations, making the description minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters. The description's mention of 'base64-encoded content' merely duplicates the schema's file parameter description, providing no additional semantic value. This meets the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('chat message to an agent with an attached file'). The modifier '(base64-encoded content)' adds technical clarity, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like lyzr_chat and lyzr_stream_chat by emphasizing the file attachment.

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 used when a chat message must include an attached file, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., lyzr_chat for text-only messages) or provide exclusions. The context is clear but implied rather than spelled out.

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