agenthop_send_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond that: the 512 KiB cap, end-to-end encryption of contents and name, relay blindness, and the conditional disk-persistence behavior on the recipient side. It stops short of covering error/return behavior, but the added behavioral context is rich.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and size limit, then the encryption guarantee, then recipient behavior. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers size limits, privacy guarantees, and recipient-side behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no further parameter syntax, format, or constraints beyond the implicit file-size limit. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a file') plus an important constraint (at most 512 KiB). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling agenthop_say messaging tool.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description ('send a file to the other side'), but it never states when to prefer this over agenthop_say or any prerequisite for the recipient to receive files. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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