send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses formatting support (Markdown, HTML, plain text) and default parse mode. However, it omits potential behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether the message is sent immediately or queued.

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 args) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity, the description covers usage, formatting, and parameters adequately. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like character limits or error behavior exist, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to both parameters: 'text' is described as message body with Markdown support; 'parse_mode' is explained with options and default. This provides useful context beyond the 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 tool sends a free-form text message to a configured Telegram chat, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_notification_with_buttons and wait_for_reply, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: 'for casual messages, inline code snippets, status updates, or any content that does not require structured formatting.' It implies not to use for notifications with buttons or replies, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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