tg_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: immediate delivery, irreversibility, and the 'me' alias for Saved Messages. This is significant for a send operation and helps the agent understand consequences, though it does not address potential errors or rate limits.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting the consequence, and giving a special usage tip. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no superfluous words.

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 text-send tool, the description covers the core purpose, immediate delivery, irreversibility, and the 'me' special value. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only notable gap is the lack of detailed peer format guidance, but overall it is adequate.

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 zero coverage (no descriptions for peer or text). The description compensates partially by explaining the special 'me' value for peer, but it does not clarify acceptable formats for peer or any constraints on text. This leaves ambiguity in parameter usage.

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 tool sends a text message to a Telegram chat, using the explicit verb 'SEND' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_send_file (file) and tg_read_chat (read), and the mention of 'real person' and 'Saved Messages' adds essential context.

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 gives clear context that this tool delivers immediately to a real person and cannot be unsent, implying suitable use cases. It also provides a usage tip for the 'me' peer value. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus tg_send_file, so it falls short of a 5.

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