send_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation sends a file and may include a caption, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, file size limits, path expectations, or behavior of the force_document flag. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 front-loads the core action and supported file types, with no filler or redundant wording. Every part earns its place, and it remains appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has no annotations and four parameters with zero schema coverage. The one-sentence description does not explain required parameters like chat, the meaning of path, or the force_document toggle, leaving important context missing for a complete agent decision.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that 'path' refers to a local file and that 'caption' is optional, but it leaves 'chat' and 'force_document' unexplained. This is insufficient for the agent to confidently construct a correct call.

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 verb ('Send'), a resource ('local file'), and enumerates supported content types (photo, video, document, voice), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name sibling differences, but 'local file' inherently distinguishes it from message-only or download-oriented siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message, forward_messages, or download_media. The description implies media sending, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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