send_checklist

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description repeats the send action but does not disclose additional traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential context. It contains a version number 'v9.1' that may be confusing and doesn't add functional clarity. It could be considered under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions. The description only says 'send an interactive checklist', which is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further knowledge. It does not explain the structure of the checklist, the role of effect_id, or how reply_markup interacts with the checklist.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description's mention of 'interactive checklist' suggests the checklist parameter is the core payload, but it provides no details on structuring the checklist or the meaning of other parameters. This is minimal compensation for the sparse schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send' and resource 'interactive checklist', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_message_checklist by specifying the send action. However, it doesn't elaborate on what an interactive checklist is, but the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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