send_poke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond restating the group/private branch, it says nothing about permissions, whether the target must be a friend or group member, rate limits, or what happens on failure, which is a real gap for a mutating interaction call.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the rest is a compact parameter recap. It is appropriately short, though the param lines duplicate the schema verbatim and thus do not fully earn their space.

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?

Wait — for a simple two-parameter interaction tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential branch and required parameter. It omits failure/permission behavior, but nothing structurally required to call it correctly 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 100% and both properties are documented identically in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate; no format, constraint, or edge-case detail is supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('发送戳一戳互动提醒') and identifies it as a NapCat extension API, so the agent knows exactly what action fires. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from adjacent interaction siblings such as send_like or set_msg_emoji_like, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

It gives one conditional routing rule: supply group_id for a group poke, omit it for a private poke. That is implied usage rather than explicit guidance about when to prefer poke over other interaction tools, and there are no stated prerequisites such as friendship or group membership.

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