send_sticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains how to select a sticker (by index or emoji) and mentions reply_to, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if sticker pack not found), or side effects. It is adequate but not 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then a parameter list. No wasted words. It front-loads the main action and efficiently documents the arguments.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. The tool is simple and the description covers all essential usage aspects. Minor gap: does not mention that some parameters are required (chat, short_name) beyond the schema, but the schema already indicates that. Overall sufficient.

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 the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning: explains short_name as from get_sticker_set, index as position, emoji as alternative selection with priority over index, and reply_to as replying to a message. This adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 ('从某个贴纸包里发一张贴纸') which translates to 'send a sticker from a sticker pack'. It identifies the specific resource (sticker from pack) and uses a specific verb ('send'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_file, send_album, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_file, send_photo). It implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., selection by index or emoji) but lacks clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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