get_chat_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (no side effects) and mentions default behavior. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., chat not found, permission issues) or rate limits. The description adds useful context beyond what would be inferred from the schema alone.

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 long, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single optional parameter, lack of output schema, and simple read operation, the description is largely complete. It lists the return fields. However, it could be improved by noting what happens if the chat ID is invalid or the bot lacks access, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful extra info: it specifies that the parameter can be a Chat ID or @channel_username, and explains the default behavior when omitted. This goes beyond the schema definition, providing clarity on optionality and acceptable formats.

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 ('Get info') and resource ('a chat'), and lists specific data fields (title, type, members count, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chat_member or get_chat_administrators by focusing on general chat info, making it clear when to use this tool.

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 context by explaining the default behavior when chat_id is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chat_administrators or get_chat_member, nor does it mention when not to use it. The intended usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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