telegram_get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey the read-only behavior by saying 'Return' and framing the call as a check. It adds the useful operational context of connectivity verification, though it does not discuss auth or error behavior, which is acceptable for this simple 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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are stated first, and the diagnostic use case is added in a single appended clause.

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 zero-argument, read-only endpoint with an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it, and nothing else is needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description has nothing meaningful to add beyond the schema.

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 names the specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'bot identity', and explicitly references the getMe API. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like telegram_get_chat or telegram_send_message, which act on different resources.

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 frames the tool as useful for a connectivity check, which is clear usage context. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-argument diagnostic method this is sufficient guidance.

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