sticker_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the output is a text list, that it does not consume image quota (a genuine behavioral trait an agent would otherwise guess wrong), and that refresh=true triggers an immediate forced resync. It stops short of warning about the cost/latency of a forced resync or how large result sets are paged.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: capability, then filters, then the quota-saving return property, then the preview/note workflow. Every clause carries information, though the final workflow tip runs a little long relative to the rest.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does the necessary work by stating the return is a text list containing meanings, tags and usage counts. It does not cover pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, which is the only remaining unknown for an agent calling this correctly.

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%, so the schema already defines limit, query and refresh. The description restates query's filter dimensions and refresh's resync semantics, adding emphasis but no new meaning, and it never mentions limit or its default of 12. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('查看这个 QQ 账号收藏的表情包') and adds the payload detail an agent cares about (含义/标签/使用次数), which distinguishes it from a plain listing. It also names the follow-up siblings sticker_preview and sticker_note for un-annotated stickers, so the agent knows where this tool sits in the workflow.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: use query to filter by 备注/标签/用途, use refresh=true to force a gateway resync, and for stickers lacking notes, preview first then record with sticker_note. The only gap is that it never positions this against the closest sibling, sticker_find, leaving that choice to inference.

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