tg_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that pressing a button is an action taken as the user and requires confirmation. It also indicates the button matching is 'exact-ish' and supports index selection, giving useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences deliver all essential information without fluff. The first defines behavior and modes; the second adds a crucial safety caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 covers the tool's two modes, selection criteria, and safety requirement, which is adequate for a Telegram inline-keyboard tool with an output schema. Minor gaps like index base and chat/message_id format exist, but the core behavior is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds meaningful details for the `button` parameter (omit to list, provide to press, matching by text or index), but it does not explain `chat` or `message_id` beyond their schema names/types. With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter guidance would be expected.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (inline keyboard under a bot's message) and the two actions: listing buttons without `button` and pressing one with `button`. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like tg_react or tg_send by focusing specifically on inline keyboard interaction.

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?

It provides direct usage instructions: call without `button` to inspect buttons, with `button` to press one, and selection can be by text or index. It also gives a critical guideline about confirming before clicking on the user's behalf, though it does not name alternative tools.

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