forward_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the target chat ID defaults to TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID if omitted, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., does it copy the entire message including media?), error conditions (e.g., message not found), or require any permissions. The description is too sparse for a mutation-like operation.

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 concise (two sentences plus a short parameter list) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence is relevant; no wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the basic usage and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on return values (though output schema exists), error scenarios, and constraints (e.g., character limits or chat permission requirements). The description is adequate but not fully 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'Source chat ID', 'ID of the message to forward', and 'Target chat ID (uses TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID if omitted)'. The default behavior note for chat_id is particularly helpful. This provides semantic value beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Forward a message from one chat to another', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_message (which creates a new message) and delete_message (which removes a message). However, it could be more precise about what 'forward' entails (e.g., preserving formatting or media), but it is sufficient for distinguishing usage.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions (e.g., cannot forward to the same chat). The agent must infer usage from the name and purpose, which is minimal guidance.

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