telegram_send_me

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses recipient fixed to self, daemon dependency and error behavior, no markdown/HTML rendering, 4096-character auto-splitting, and the duplicate-message risk. This gives the agent essential behavioral context for a non-idempotent send action, and it does not contradict the annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the core action and organized into clear bullets and starred warnings. It is somewhat long and has minor repetition between the general introduction and the '아침 주식 비서' usage example, but every block contributes useful operational or safety 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?

For a single-parameter send tool, the description covers the message content, recipient, transmission mechanism, failure mode, length limits, return value, and content-safety rules. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents the only parameter: messages is a plain-text string list where each element becomes one Telegram message. It also explains plain-text formatting, auto-splitting behavior, and provides a realistic example call, making invocation unambiguous.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb (전송합니다) and a precise destination (user's own Telegram 'Saved Messages'), clearly identifying this as a send-to-self tool. This distinguishes it from the many read/search/classify sibling tools, and the example call reinforces the intended action.

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 places the tool in a concrete workflow: write a briefing in a scheduled task, then send it once. It adds strong operational rules such as 'call only once' and 'never resend or correct after sending.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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