Telegram MCP Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending a question and waiting for a response, which implies interactive behavior and potential delays, but fails to detail critical aspects like timeout handling, error responses, authentication needs, or whether this is a blocking operation. The description is too sparse for a tool that interacts with external systems.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (interactive user communication via Telegram) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details on response format, error handling, timeouts, and operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use this tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'question' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter documentation.

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 action ('sends a question... and waits for a YES/NO response') and the target ('to the user via Telegram'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to distinguish from alternatives, which prevents a perfect 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining binary confirmation from users via Telegram but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other confirmation methods or direct actions). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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