send_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose important behavioral traits such as file size limits, required permissions, file format restrictions, or impact of other parameters, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behavior. Every word is essential and no unnecessary information is included.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only basic usage context (voice source and default chat). While schema descriptions fill many gaps, the description lacks overarching context for complex parameters like reply_markup and caption_entities, making it only moderately complete.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema—only reiterating that voice can be URL/file path and chat_id defaults—rather than providing deeper semantic meaning.

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 voice message') and the resource ('to a Telegram chat'), and distinguishes from sibling send_* tools by specifying voice-specific capabilities like sending from URL or local file path, and defaulting to a log group.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to send a voice message) and notes default behavior for chat_id, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., send_audio for audio files).

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