telegram_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It discloses rate limits, 429 handling, and that the tool does not send messages. However, it does not explicitly state whether the restart is a destructive operation or if it requires specific permissions, though the nature of restart is generally safe. The coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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 only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and technical detail, providing rate-limit guidance, and providing usage context. No unnecessary words or redundant information. This is an excellent example of 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no enums) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the parameter 'group_id' is left completely unexplained, which is a gap. The description covers usage and behavior but fails to complete the parameter context, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'group_id' represents or how to obtain it. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's title and default. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Restart' with the resource 'Telegram worker process (pm2 aibot-<username>)'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'workers_update' by explicitly stating 'not workers_update'. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to a user request to restart the bot.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the user asks to restart the bot — not workers_update.' It also provides rate-limiting behavior (60s per bot) and error handling instructions ('on 429 wait retry_after, do not loop'), which are clear usage guidelines.

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