alert

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 discloses that the tool sends a Telegram message and that priority affects sound (via the schema). However, it does not mention potential delivery failure, external dependency on a configured chat, or that the tool has no return output—useful context for a side-effecting tool.

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 two sentences with no ffuff. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds useful trigger conditions. Every phrase pulls weight and the main verb+resource are front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it does and when to use it. It does not mention that the alert is a reliable side effect with no return value or that a chat ID must already be configured, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the schema itself provides descriptions and examples for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some user-facing scenarios for message content, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Send a Telegram alert for Claude Code status updates.' It further enumerates concrete trigger situations—'when you need input, when tasks complete, or for any important status update'—and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tool get_chat_id, which retrieves an ID rather than sending anything.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to notify the user when you need input, when tasks complete, or for any important status update.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling get_chat_id is clearly not an alternative for sending alerts, so the context is sufficient.

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