qq_send_private_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions accepting both local files and URLs, which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as file size limits, whether URL downloads are performed server-side, or whether the operation is idempotent. As an upload action, it likely creates a resource, but this is implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the primary action and target. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it sacrifices important parameter details. The structure is efficient for the purpose it serves.

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 low parameter coverage (0%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool. Key missing items include return value, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., logged-in user), and file path requirements. The description only covers the basic action.

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%. The description does not elaborate on any of the three parameters (user_id, file, name). While 'file' is hinted at via 'local file or URL', there is no explanation of user_id format, the purpose of optional name, or constraints like supported file types. The agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 explicitly states the action ('Upload a local file or URL') and the target resource ('QQ private chat'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'private' as opposed to group file sending, and also mentions the underlying protocol ('NapCat's OneBot-compatible file action'), providing clear purpose.

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 clearly indicates use in private chats via the phrase 'to a QQ private chat', which helps differentiate from group file sending (sibling qq_send_group_file). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with sending private messages (qq_send_private_message), which may cause ambiguity for agents unaware of file vs message distinction.

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