tg_stickers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what data is accessed (sticker packs, GIFs) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects (if any) occur. The phrase 'on the account' hints at account scoping but safety characteristics are left ambiguous.

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 compact and uses a clear Arg list. Every piece of information (scope, set, limit) serves a purpose. The opening line is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main query dimensions (scope, set, limit) reasonably well. However, it omits guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like tg_send_sticker or tg_media, and it does not describe response formatting or pagination behavior. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description's Arg explanations are essential. It adds meaning to all three parameters: scope values with concrete meanings, set as a short_name with a t.me/addstickers/<short_name> format, and limit as item count. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it does not mention defaults or type 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 identifies the resource ('Sticker packs and GIFs on the account') and enumerates specific scopes like 'sets', 'set', 'faved', 'recent', 'gifs', which clarifies the retrieval function. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', and does not directly contrast with siblings like tg_send_sticker, though the resource is distinct enough.

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?

Usage is implied through the scope argument: each option describes what it does ('installed packs', 'contents of one pack', 'saved GIFs'), and the note that 'set' requires the `set` parameter provides some conditional guidance. But there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer this over related tools like tg_media or tg_download.

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