bale_send_typing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is an ephemeral, non-persistent signal, whether it requires an active session/connection, or any rate-limit behavior. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single clean sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but that is the only relief. With no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no behavioral detail, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly and safely.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at target selection with 'a chat or group'. It does not explain chat_id semantics, nor the meaning or valid values of chat_type (default 'private'), so the 0% coverage gap is not compensated.

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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (typing action indicator) with a target scope (a chat or group), clearly distinguishing it from bale_send_message since it sends a transient indicator rather than content. However, it does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It states what is sent but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like bale_send_message, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an active/connected session. Usage is only inferrable from the verb itself.

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