send_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a copy (source preserved, not a move) and that source directories are role-scoped and configurable — non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer. It says nothing about destination collisions, recursion into folders, or whether paths must be absolute, which are the real risks for a file-copy operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The second sentence mixes two ideas (source folders and role scoping) but stays compact.

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?

For a 3-parameter, 0%-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves too much open: agent_id and subfolder are unexplained, and overwrite/recursion behavior is unstated. An agent could plausibly call it and fail on path format or clobber a destination file.

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 all three parameters are undocumented in structured form and the description must compensate. It hints at 'paths' via 'files or folders' but never explains agent_id (target inbox identity) or subfolder at all, and gives no format expectations for the path array.

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 and destination: 'Copy files or folders into the agent's inbox.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings such as fetch_files and list_files, though it never names those siblings explicitly and drifts into caller-permission details ('the lead may send from...') rather than staying on what the operation does.

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?

It gives a real precondition — which callers may send from which source folders — which is useful routing context. But it never says when to choose send_files over send_message (for text) or how it relates to fetch_files, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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