telegram_commands_get

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals that the tool is read-only ('Does not send messages') and states what it returns ('segments + translations'). However, it does not disclose whether the operation requires any special permissions, whether it changes state on the Telegram side, or what happens when group_id is empty (default). These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 that immediately communicate the core purpose and add a key behavioral constraint. Every word serves a purpose. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so return values are presumably documented there. The description properly indicates the output content type ('segments + translations'). Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no annotations overhead), the description is mostly sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of clarification on what happens when group_id is omitted, but the default value suggests it retrieves a global menu.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, the tool has only a single parameter (group_id) with a default of empty string. The description does not explicitly explain group_id, but given its name and the bot command menu context, its purpose is reasonably inferable. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but with only one simple parameter and schema coverage at 0%, a slight benefit of the doubt is warranted for clarity.

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 'Read' and the resource 'bot command menu', and specifies it returns 'segments + translations'. It also adds a negative statement 'Does not send messages', which helps differentiate it from potential sibling tools like telegram_commands_save. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from all siblings, and the sibling list is large with several other 'telegram_' prefixed tools, so some agent confusion remains.

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 indicates this is a read-only retrieval tool, contrasting it with the write operation of sending messages. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like telegram_status or telegram_commands_save. Given the sibling context includes telegram_commands_save, an explicit alternative mention would have raised the score.

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