send_telegram_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states that the tool sends a message and doesn't require approval, but does not disclose delivery semantics, asynchronous behavior, failure modes, or any prerequisites. For an action tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly conveys both purpose and usage context with no fluff.

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 messaging tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects for an agent to select and invoke it: the action, the channel, and the appropriate use cases. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not critical for a send operation, and the schema covers parameter details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents both parameters ('message' and 'priority') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist.

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 and resource: 'Send a message to the user via Telegram.' It also specifies the acceptable use cases ('status updates, informational messages') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it's for communication that doesn't require approval, which distinguishes it from approval-request tools.

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 clear when-to-use context: 'status updates, informational messages, or any communication that doesn't require approval.' It implies exclusions (approval-required communication) but does not explicitly name alternative tools like request_plan_approval or notify_error, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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