tg_bot_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a conditional behavior (command list only included when the bot is the agent's own bot) and an ownership requirement, which adds value. However, it does not state read-only semantics, auth requirements, or failure modes.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core function without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain parameter semantics or usage context, though it does note the conditional command list. With no annotations and zero schema coverage, this leaves several gaps for a tool with an output schema.

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% and neither parameter is described in the description. The 'bot' parameter's format (username vs. ID) and the purpose of 'lang_code' are unstated. The description does not compensate for the missing schema information.

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 tool retrieves a bot's name, about text, description, and command list, scoped to bots the user owns. The verb (get/retrieve) is implied, and it distinguishes from siblings like tg_bot_edit (editing) and tg_chat_info (chat metadata).

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 implies usage for retrieving metadata about a bot the user owns, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., when the bot is not owned). No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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