wa_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: auto-sanitization of filename, validation of type/size, secret scanning of caption, and potential need for confirm_token. These go beyond basic 'send file' but omit details like rate limits or failure modes.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and adds key behavioral details efficiently, earning its place.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description covers validation, sanitization, and token requirements. However, it lacks specifics on file size limits, supported types, or success/error outputs, leaving some context incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains file_path (auto-sanitized), caption (scanned), and confirm_token (from wa_preview), but does not clearly describe recipient format or confirm_token retrieval. Gaps remain for parameters like recipient and file_path expectations.

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 'Send a file to an allowlisted recipient', specifying the verb (send) and resource (file). The sibling tools (wa_send_message for text, wa_preview for preview, wa_list_recipients for listing, wa_audit_tail for audit) differentiate this tool's purpose of sending files, making it distinct.

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 implicitly guides usage by mentioning that a confirm_token may be required and referencing wa_preview, hinting at a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over wa_send_message or provide exclusions.

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