send_message

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.