resolve_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool resolves and that it returns id, type, and main fields, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, network side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. For a resolver with no annotation safety hints, this is a noticeable 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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('resolve a reference into a Telegram entity'), then lists input formats and output contents. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names accepted inputs and the kind of result returned. It lacks explicit alternative routing and behavioral caveats, but those are covered by other dimensions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single 'query' parameter. It does this thoroughly by enumerating the accepted input formats: @username, phone, t.me link, numeric id, or 'me'. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema, which only provides a type of string.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' and names the resource: a Telegram entity. It explicitly lists the accepted input forms (@username, phone, t.me link, numeric id, or 'me'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_chat or search_public, but the resolution behavior is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you have a reference like @username, a phone number, a t.me link, an id, or 'me' and need the underlying entity. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as get_chat or search_public, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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