press_reply_keyboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that pressing a button sends corresponding text, implying a mutation, but it does not mention required permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. The description lacks context for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 concise: a single-sentence overview followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no enums, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and an optional validation feature. It does not mention what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., the chat must have a reply keyboard), but these are minor gaps.

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 description includes an 'Args' section with brief explanations for each parameter: 'chat', 'text', and 'reference_message_id'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles, clarifying that 'text' is the button text and 'reference_message_id' is for validation. However, the 'chat' parameter format could be more explicit (e.g., supported types).

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 ('press a button on the reply keyboard') and the resource (reply keyboard). It distinguishes the tool from general message sending, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'send_message' or 'click_inline_button'.

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 a usage hint for the optional 'reference_message_id' parameter to validate the button's existence, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., the chat must have a reply keyboard).

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