send_voice

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool converts .ogg/.mp3 files to an opus voice note, which goes beyond the annotations. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false, confirming a mutating operation, and does not contradict any annotation.

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 conveys the core purpose and key format detail without any waste. It is easy to parse and perfectly concise.

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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity with 6 parameters, the description captures the essential function and format conversion. The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the schema itself lists parameters. The description is reasonably complete for a sending tool, though it lacks some contextual details about optional parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying parameters. It only hints at the file format for file_path, leaving chat, silent, caption, reply_to, and duration_seconds unexplained. The minimal value added over the schema is insufficient.

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 action 'send a voice message' and specifies the format conversion (.ogg/.mp3 → opus voice note), distinguishing it from generic file sending tools like send_file. It unambiguously identifies the resource and operation.

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 usage for sending voice messages but does not explicitly state when to choose this over send_file or send_video_note. No exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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