chat_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly marks the operation as 'Read-only', which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs for safety. It also summarizes the returned metadata fields, though it does not discuss auth requirements or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core operation and returned fields are front-loaded, and the use case sentence adds genuine value rather than repeating the name or schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned, that it is read-only, and when to use it. An agent can correctly select and invoke it without additional 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 already documents the single chat parameter with 100% coverage ('@username, t.me link, or numeric id'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving metadata for a single chat and enumerates specific fields ('kind, member count, description, verification flags'), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_chats. However, it does not explicitly contrast with read_chat, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 phrase 'Useful for judging whether a channel is what it claims to be' provides a clear, concrete use case for verification and trust checks. It does not name explicit alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is explicit enough.

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