tg_poll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details such as 'quiz_answer' making it a quiz and 'anonymous: false shows who voted for what', but it does not disclose return values, permissions, or failure modes, which leaves some gaps.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus a clean list of arguments. Every line earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action and constraint.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters and includes a key platform limitation. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. It lacks prerequisites like how to obtain a chat ID, but that is likely handled by sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to each parameter—e.g., 'multiple: allow several answers', 'quiz_answer: index of the correct option'—beyond the bare schema titles. It does not go into deep format details but covers the essentials.

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 'Post a poll (2-10 options)' which is a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like tg_send or tg_message, and the parenthetical adds a key constraint.

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 clarifies that polls are only for groups or channels by saying 'Telegram refuses polls in private chats' and labeling chat as 'group or channel'. This provides a clear when-not context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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