tiktok_im

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

Description discloses key behaviors: dryRun default, transport behavior for send_text, best-effort for messages, and how peer_conversation builds IDs. Since no annotations exist, it provides essential transparency. Lacks details on potential side effects or error states.

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?

Description is lengthy and dense with technical jargon like 'composer re-reads exact text'. Not front-loaded; key purposes are buried. Could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of actions.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details for some actions (e.g., what 'status' or 'phone_status' return). Partially explains inbox and messages returns but not comprehensively. Incomplete for a complex tool.

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% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining dryRun default, transport defaults, and peerUid requirement (mutual follow). But much of the description restates schema info. Baseline 3 with marginal added value.

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?

Description clearly enumerates actions (status, conversations, etc.) and states it's an IM network runtime. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on IM functionality. However, the purpose is somewhat buried in technical phrasing.

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?

Provides context for some actions (e.g., inbox refreshes without UI navigation, send_text defaults to dryRun). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but the tool is the only IM tool among siblings.

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