tg_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that summaries are 'produced server-side and costs nothing in context,' each message is 'summarised on its own,' and the limit of 'up to 10 messages.' It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but those are not critical for a summarization tool with an output 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a two-sentence usage guideline, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, all parameter semantics, and behavioral context (server-side, per-message). It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: chat accepts 'chat id, @username, exact title or me', message_ids are 'up to 10 messages, each summarised on its own', and to_lang is a 'two-letter language code' with examples. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'summarise long messages, optionally straight into another language.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like tg_translate (translation) and tg_history (reading full messages).

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 explicit guidance: 'prefer it over reading a 3000-character post in full when the owner only wants the gist' and 'Give the whole post to the model instead when precision matters.' This clearly states when to use the tool and when not to, with a rationale (server-side, costs nothing in context).

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