send_sticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions source types and default chat behavior, omitting important traits like error handling, size limits, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 complexity (8 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the essential action and a key default, but does not provide broader context about the tool's role in the Telegram API or interactions with other tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the chat_id default behavior, which is not in schema. However, it does not expand on other parameters or their usage beyond what schema already describes.

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 sticker to a Telegram chat, specifying the resource (sticker) and the action (send). It also mentions supported source types (URL, file_id, local path), distinguishing it from sibling send tools like send_photo or send_animation.

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 provides a minimal guideline: if chat_id is omitted, it sends to the default log group. However, it does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., send_photo vs send_sticker) or any prerequisites or constraints.

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