Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_documentA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that document can be a URL, file path, or file_id, and notes caption character limit and parse_mode reference. However, it does not disclose destructive hints, authentication needs, rate limits, file size constraints, or behavior on failure. Critical gaps remain for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted Args list. It is concise and front-loaded. Minor improvement could be reducing redundancy in parameter names, but it is clear and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool complexity (5 params, required document) and presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It references send_message for parse_mode but does not provide independent context. Overall adequate but with noticeable gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: document (URL, path, file_id), chat_id (default chat), caption (max 1024), parse_mode (see send_message), disable_notification (silent). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action: 'Send a file/document to a Telegram chat.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. The title and sibling tools (send_message, send_photo) indicate distinct purposes, so the tool is well-differentiated.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or send_photo. The description only explains parameters, not the context for choosing this tool. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

• send_photoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context (e.g., silent sending through disable_notification, caption max length). However, it omits other traits like file size limits or required authentication.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. The parameter list is well-organized but could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter usage and key behaviors, though some behavioral details like error handling are missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed meanings for all parameters: photo sources (URL, file path, file_id), chat_id default behavior, caption max length, parse_mode reference, and disable_notification effect.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Send a photo to a Telegram chat,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_document and send_message by focusing on photos.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for sending photos but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

• get_meA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes the operation as returning identity, implying read-only, non-destructive behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Simple tool with no params and an output schema; description covers identity retrieval and use case completely.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Tool has no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description adds no param info but none needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'bot's own identity', distinguishing it from send tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use it to verify the token and connection', providing clear context for when to use.

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

• send_messageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses text length limits, optional chat_id, parse_mode behavior, silent notification, link preview control, and reply-to functionality. It does not cover rate limits, authentication requirements, or detailed error handling, but the disclosure is substantial for a simple send tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with a clear main line followed by a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters and their constraints thoroughly. However, it lacks information on idempotency, retries, or error scenarios, which might be relevant for a messaging tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It fully explains each parameter: text (max length, required), chat_id (numeric or @username, optional), parse_mode (options and validation), and the boolean flags. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/default information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Send a text message to a Telegram chat,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_document and send_photo, which handle files and images, respectively.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides usage context, such as omitting chat_id to use the default chat, and explains parse_mode options with a warning about escaping. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling names.

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