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. It discloses the two delivery modes and that this is a NapCat extension interface, but says nothing about rate limits, permission requirements, failure modes (e.g., non-friend target), or whether the recipient is notified.

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 core purpose and the mode-selection rule are front-loaded in the first two clauses, which is efficient. The trailing ':param' lines duplicate the schema descriptions and add some redundancy, but overall it is short and readable.

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 interaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling logic (mode selection). Return values need not be explained without an output schema, but failure conditions and prerequisites remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same parameter text ('要戳的目标 QQ 号', '所在群号 (可选，不填则为私聊戳一戳)') without adding syntax, constraints, or format details beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('发送戳一戳互动提醒') and immediately clarifies the two operating modes (group vs. private) based on group_id. It is unambiguous against most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with related interaction tools like send_like or send_group_msg.

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 states the conditional that selects group vs. private behavior ('若提供 group_id 则在群内戳指定成员；若不提供则发送私聊戳一戳'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (send_like, send_msg) or any prerequisites such as needing an existing friend/group relationship.

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