telegram_format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description is free to focus elsewhere. It adds real behavioral detail: the call is a precondition probe, omitting topic enumerates all topics, and long posts map to 'rich_message'. It stops short of saying what the response looks like beyond implying assembled syntax guidance.

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 key instruction is front-loaded in sentence one, and the topic list, while long, is functional rather than filler. Minor redundancy in 'Ask what shape ... must have' and a list that partly overlaps the schema's examples keep it from being maximally tight.

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 single optional-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, timing, argument options, and one special case. The only meaningful gap is that it never explicitly says the result is returned as format documentation/instructions rather than triggering any Telegram action.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it enumerates nine valid topic keys that the schema only samples, and clarifies the no-argument default of listing every topic. That is meaning beyond the schema, not a restatement of it.

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 opens with a specific framing: 'Ask what shape a structured Telegram parameter must have BEFORE sending.' That verb+resource combination makes clear this is a schema/syntax lookup tool rather than a send action, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs against the many send_* siblings.

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?

It states an explicit trigger ('whenever you are about to build a rich post, an album, a keyboard, or a poll and are not certain of the exact syntax') and a sequencing constraint ('BEFORE sending'), plus a fallback ('Omit the topic to list them all') and an escalation rule for long posts. This is close to a complete decision policy.

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