send_dice

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the animated/random nature, which is part of the core purpose. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or return value characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, but this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling send_* tools, this description is inadequate. It does not mention return values, parameter roles, or usage scenarios. The agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 30%, and the description does not compensate. It provides no explanations for the 10 parameters, including non-obvious ones like effect_id, protect_content, business_connection_id, or the odd allow_paid_broadcast/disable_notification references. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the action (send) and the resource (an animated emoji displaying a random value). It distinguishes this tool from other send_* tools like send_sticker or send_photo by emphasizing the random-value aspect, which maps directly to the dice functionality.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any context or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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