add_friend

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 mentions a timeout parameter with default 5 seconds, which hints at potential delays or failures, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with the friend request workflow. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are efficiently listed in a single sentence with clear labels. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved with bullet points or separation of purpose from parameters.

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 mutation tool (adding friends) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns on success/failure, error conditions, side effects, or how it fits into the broader friend management workflow. The parameter semantics are helpful, but critical behavioral context is missing.

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 provides meaningful semantics for all 6 parameters: 'keywords' as search terms (required), 'addmsg' as verification message, 'remark' as nickname, 'tags' as tag list, 'permission' with enum values (朋友圈/仅聊天), and 'timeout' with default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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's purpose as '添加新好友' (add new friend), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'accept_new_friend' (which accepts pending requests) and 'get_friends' (which retrieves existing friends). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from these siblings beyond the basic action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the friend must be found via search first), when not to use it (e.g., for existing friends), or clarify the relationship with 'accept_new_friend' for handling incoming friend requests.

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