tg_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that delivery is immediate and irreversible by this server, which is critical for a send operation. Other traits like file size limits or path requirements are not mentioned, but the irreversibility is a strong and relevant disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key action, followed by essential behavioral and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, so the description must cover a lot. It covers the core purpose, a key behavior (irreversible), and a usage tip, but omits details like file path semantics, authentication requirements, or potential errors. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the input context could be richer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'peer' with 'Use me for Saved Messages' and implies 'path' refers to the file to send, while 'caption' is optional. However, it does not explain the format or source of the path (e.g., local filesystem, URL), leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'SEND a file to a Telegram chat' with a clear verb and resource, and highlights optional caption support. This distinguishes it from siblings like tg_send_message (text) and tg_download_media (download), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides useful context on when to use the tool: it sends files with immediate delivery and cannot be unsent, plus a specific tip for Saved Messages. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like tg_send_message or mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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