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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid message ID). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like success/error responses, side effects, or security considerations, which are essential for a mutation tool in a messaging context with sibling operations.

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%, with the single parameter 'message_id' documented as 'Message ID to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a message from the channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'edit_message' or 'send_message'), which would require specifying what makes deletion distinct from other message operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing message ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete messages from other users), or comparisons to sibling tools (like 'edit_message' for modifications instead of deletion).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool edits a message, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether edits are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the message_id is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Edit an existing message'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (a mutation operation with 3 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate. For a tool that modifies data, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters (message_id, parse_mode, text) with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't explain how these parameters interact (e.g., parse_mode applies to the new text) or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 states the action ('edit') and resource ('an existing message'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'send_message' or 'delete_message' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it specify what aspects of the message can be edited (e.g., text, formatting). This makes the purpose somewhat vague but still identifiable.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid message_id), exclusions (e.g., cannot edit messages after a certain time), or comparisons to siblings like 'send_message' for new messages or 'delete_message' for removal. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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 states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the channel doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what information is returned and under what conditions, but it doesn't, leaving gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing, but it's not a 5 because the description doesn't explicitly state that no parameters are required, which could be slightly helpful.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the Telegram channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message or delete_message by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what type of information is retrieved (metadata, statistics, etc.), keeping it from 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that this is for reading channel information rather than sending or editing content, there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other tools. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'send' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). The description lacks crucial operational context for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success response, error handling), doesn't mention authentication or permissions needed, and provides minimal context about the Telegram channel environment.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('send a text message') and target ('to the Telegram channel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'send_photo' or 'send_poll' which also send messages but with different content types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_photo' for images or 'edit_message' for modifications. It mentions the channel context but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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

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 states the action ('Send') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., message ID returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 this is a mutation tool (sending data) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'photo' is required (matching the schema's required field). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('Send') and resource ('a photo to the Telegram channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'send_poll', which would require mentioning it's specifically for photos rather than text or other media types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' or other send_* siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., channel access), exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create and send' implies a write operation, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after sending (e.g., poll visibility). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (creating and sending a poll) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 schema fully documents all parameters (question, options, type, is_anonymous) with details like defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create and send') and resource ('a poll to the Telegram channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_message or send_photo, which could also involve Telegram channel interactions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel access), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like send_message for non-poll content. Without such context, the agent must infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether reactions are reversible, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings involving message operations, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral implications, error conditions, or integration with other tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('emoji' and 'message_id'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as emoji format examples or message ID sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('send a reaction') and target resource ('to a message'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'edit_message' which also involve message interactions, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'send_message' and 'edit_message' available, the description lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for sending reactions.

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