tg_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the channel (agent's own bot) and that it does not operate in chats, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must have an active chat with the bot), delivery semantics, or potential side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple notification 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?

A single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and free of extraneous information. Every word contributes to distinguishing the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is largely sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. However, it omits any guidance on prerequisites, failure behavior, or when to prefer this over similar sibling tools, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 schema has a single 'text' string parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the text is the notification content by mentioning 'a notification', but it does not explicitly clarify the parameter's role. The meaning is easily inferred, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('Send') and resource ('a notification through the agent's own bot'), clearly stating what the tool does. The parenthetical '(not their chats)' explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools that send messages to chats (e.g., tg_send, tg_message), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: to send a notification via the agent's bot, with an explicit exclusion of chats. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the 'not their chats' gives a clear when-not, which is more than implied usage but less than explicitly naming alternatives.

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