sendGame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral fact: 'On success, the sent Message is returned,' which informs the agent about the return value. However, it discloses nothing else—no side effects beyond what 'Send' implies, no permission requirements, no failure behavior. The single return-value note is genuine but minimal.

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?

Two sentences totaling 11 words, with the core operation front-loaded. There is zero wasted text. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the extreme brevity leaves room for high-value additions (e.g., one usage-direction clause) that would not compromise conciseness.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin but workable: the schema fully documents parameters, and the description names the returned entity (a Message). The notable gap is usage context—an agent cannot determine when sendGame is the right choice among the many sibling send tools, nor what conditions must hold before calling it. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for correct selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; every parameter (chat_id, game_short_name, reply_markup, protect_content, etc.) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Send a game') that clearly identifies the operation. The name and description align well, and the resource 'game' distinguishes it from most send_* siblings at a surface level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from conceptually close siblings like sendMessage, sendInvoice, or sendDice, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling list containing many send_* tools (sendMessage, sendInvoice, sendGift, sendDice, etc.), an agent receives no signal about what conditions select sendGame, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a game set up via @BotFather), or when a different tool would be appropriate.

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