tg_stickers

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the account-scoped nature and scope-specific requirements, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense, and logically organized: a one-line resource summary followed by a precise Args block. Every line adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

All three parameters are semantically defined and the main scope cases are covered. Because there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit note about the returned item shape would be ideal, but the scope list already tells the caller what kind of data to expect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it enumerates all scope values, explains what each returns, defines the expected set short_name format, states the dependency for 'set' scope, and clarifies limit. This is substantially more meaningful than the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource (sticker packs and GIFs on the account) and implies retrieval through the scope arguments, but it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It separates itself from send-oriented siblings like tg_send_sticker by emphasizing account-local packs/GIFs, though it does not name the alternative.

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 scope documentation conveys when each mode is appropriate (installed sets, one pack, favorites, recent, saved GIFs) and calls out that 'set' mode needs the set parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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