戳一戳

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent action, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the two-mode scope but does not explain behavioral nuances such as permission requirements, failure modes, or side effects beyond the poke itself.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The operation and context are front-loaded, and the key group-chat requirement is stated immediately.

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 simple send action, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. It could mention permission or failure details, but the annotations cover the safety profile and no output schema is expected.

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 schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful mode-dependent meaning: group chat requires both IDs, implying that private chat works with user_id alone. This is genuinely helpful beyond the 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 a specific action, '发送戳一戳' (send a poke), and the target contexts, group chat or private chat. This is enough to distinguish it from message-sending siblings like send_group_msg and send_private_msg.

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?

It gives clear context on where the tool applies (group or private chat) and a concrete usage rule: group poke requires both group_id and user_id. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus alternatives, but the action is self-explanatory enough.

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