send_audio

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about the music player display. No contradictions found. It does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds one valuable behavior note. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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's complexity (17 parameters), low schema description coverage, and lack of output schema, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error cases, formatting specifics, or any context beyond the basic send action. For a complex tool, more context is needed to enable correct invocation.

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 only 47%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not; it provides no additional meaning for any of the 17 parameters, not even the required ones beyond what the schema already states. The description is silent on parameter semantics.

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 tool 'Send an audio file', which is a specific action on a resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like send_voice or send_document. The mention of the music player offers a subtle differentiator but stops short of naming alternatives.

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 context by noting that Telegram clients display the audio in the music player, suggesting this is for music/audio tracks rather than voice messages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus send_voice or send_document, nor any exclusions.

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