send_dice

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

Despite the annotations already indicating non-read-only behavior, the description adds valuable context: Telegram will send a random result, and the allowed emoji values are enumerated. This goes beyond the bare annotations, though it doesn't disclose any prerequisites or response details.

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 very concise: a single-sentence summary followed by a compact argument list. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the main parameter. It omits details about 'silent' but that is a standard boolean flag. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description clarifies the 'emoji' parameter by listing its accepted values. It does not explain 'chat' or 'silent', which are left to the schema names/types. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states it sends an interactive 'dice' (кубик), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other send_* tools by describing the interactive random-result behavior and explicitly listing the available emoji options.

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 purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it (when you want to send a dice-like interactive message). However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from send_message, send_media, or other message-sending tools.

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