qq_send_sticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations would not: the caption feature requires a bridge version that supports it, and the agent should not additionally send the same text. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes, rate limits, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the caption option and the anti-duplication rule. Nothing is padded, though the phrase '桥接版本' is terse enough to be slightly opaque to an agent unfamiliar with the bridge terminology.

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 6-parameter send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the caption path. The required credential parameters and the atUserId/replyToMessageId targeting behavior are left entirely to sparse schema hints, so an agent cannot fully infer how to address or reply to a specific user from this description.

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 50%, so key, token and stickerId are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for the undocumented caption parameter by explaining that its text is merged into the same message as the image. It adds nothing for atUserId or replyToMessageId, leaving the mention/reply semantics entirely implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in '发送一张表情' (send a sticker) and immediately explains the two supported modes: image only, or image plus caption in one message. It is clearly distinguishable from the listed siblings qq_list_stickers and qq_get_sticker_image, though it never names them explicitly.

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 concrete in-call guidance ('可只发图，或传 caption 将文字与图片放在同一条消息；不要另发重复文字'), which tells the agent how to avoid a duplicate-text mistake. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling sticker tools, and no note about when caption should be omitted.

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