send_message

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions formatting support (Markdown/HTML) but omits other traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on error. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured, with a brief introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet-like explanation of each parameter. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters. However, it does not mention the return behavior (e.g., message object), which is partially mitigated by the output schema. Still, it could be more 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to each parameter: text supports Markdown/HTML, chat_id defaults to TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID, parse_mode and reply_to_message_id are optional. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Send a text message to a Telegram chat.' This clearly defines the verb 'send' and the resource 'text message', distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_document or send_photo.

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 explains key usage details: support for Markdown/HTML via parse_mode, default chat_id behavior, and optional reply_to_message_id. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.

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