send_animation

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

With no annotations, the description covers file source options and default chat, but lacks details on file size limits, supported formats beyond 'GIF', error handling, or authentication requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the essential purpose and key behaviors, with no redundant information.

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?

Despite 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality. However, it could hint at the many optional parameters (e.g., reply_markup) and standard Telegram features, which are not mentioned.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the animation parameter's source types but adds no additional semantics for other parameters like width, duration, or reply_markup.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'animation (GIF)', specifies source types (URL or local file), and highlights behavior when chat_id is omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_photo or send_video.

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 context when to use (sending an animation) and default behavior for omitted chat_id, but does not explicitly compare with other send tools or state when not to use.

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