send_like

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the times range and default, but says nothing about whether the target must be a friend, whether likes are idempotent or rate-limited, or what happens on an invalid/unknown QQ number.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the two ':param' lines are pure duplication of the schema and earn no place in the description. Nothing is actively misleading, just redundant.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no return documentation it leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites (friend status) and failure behavior.

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 100% and the two params are already fully documented in the schema; the description's ':param' lines restate the schema verbatim rather than adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: liking a designated friend's profile card (OneBot 11: send_like). The action is unambiguous and distinguishable from near neighbors like send_poke or set_msg_emoji_like, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no case for when not to use it, and no alternatives named. The only usage cue is the implicit '(1~10, default 10)' constraint on the repeat count.

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