telegram_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message goes to a 'configured Telegram chat' and emphasizes it as the required reply channel, but it does not mention potential failures, rate limits, or delivery confirmation. The key behavior is clear but operational details are sparse.

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 two sentences: the first is a clear functional definition, and the second is a critical usage rule. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It includes the essential context that this tool is the mandatory channel for all replies, which is critical for an agent. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not describe any error behavior or success indications.

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 100%: the only parameter 'message' is described as 'The message text to send'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 a text message to the configured Telegram chat.' It specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'text message to Telegram chat', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegram_send_photo and telegram_send_document.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'You MUST use this tool to reply to the user regardless of whether they sent their message via terminal or Telegram. Always respond through Telegram.' This clarifies when to use this tool over alternatives and provides a strong directive for agent behavior.

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