send_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (send file) without mentioning file size limits, permission requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or the success/failure response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise sentence with no wasteful words. It effectively communicates the core function, and while it lacks structured sections like usage notes, its brevity is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has a nested object, multiple parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or special behaviors such as spoiler handling or content length limits. An agent would need to infer these from the schema alone, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters, including the nested file object with name, content, and contentType properties, as well as channelId, content, and spoiler. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'send file', so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sends a file to a Discord channel, using a specific verb (送信) and resource (channel) with the scope of 'file'. This distinguishes it from sibling send_message by specifying the file component, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or execute_webhook. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual clues beyond the basic function, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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