tg_participants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose return fields and notes that phone is included only when visible, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or failure modes for large groups/private chats.

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 well-structured with a concise opening summary, a useful bullet-style list of returned fields, and a clean Args block. Each sentence adds value, though the field enumeration makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

For a simple list tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage: it names all parameters with semantics and summarizes the result contents. It lacks some operational context such as permissions or error cases, but this is not critical for basic invocation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: chat accepts id, @username, or exact title; limit controls member count; query filters by name or username. This is precisely the semantic enrichment needed beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 indicates the tool returns members of a group/channel and enumerates key fields (username, direct chat link, phone, role, last-seen, flags), which distinguishes it from related tools like tg_contacts or tg_chat_info. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Get', relying on a noun phrase to convey the action.

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 the tool is for retrieving members when you have a chat identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as tg_contacts or tg_chat_info, nor when not to use it. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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