tg_send_sticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains how to select stickers via scope, index, or emoji, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation is irreversible. Basic send functionality is transparent, but deeper behavioral details are missing.

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 a single purpose line followed by a clean, bulleted list of parameters. It is concise, with no wasted words, and front-loads the core action before detailing 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 send tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameters. It lacks contextual details like prerequisites or common error cases, but given the relative simplicity of sending stickers/GIFs and the existence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description fully explains every parameter: chat, scope, set, index, emoji, and reply_to. It adds meaningful semantics like scope options, the dependency of set on scope, and referencing tg_stickers for index numbering, far exceeding schema information.

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 function: 'Send a sticker or a saved GIF.' This specific verb+resource is distinct from sibling tools like tg_send_file or tg_send_location, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage by specifying the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tg_send or tg_send_file. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of sibling tools, so the usage context is only inferred.

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