tg_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the actual image rather than a description, explains the difference between 'preview' and 'full' sizes, and notes that viewing a story does not mark it as seen. This is useful context, though it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., error handling or parameter conflicts).

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 concise and well-structured. The opening sentence immediately conveys the core purpose, the usage guidance follows, and the Args section is a neat bulleted list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers core functionality, parameter semantics, and a key side effect (story seen state). It does not explicitly clarify the relationship/conflict between message_id and story_id when both are provided, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 explain the parameters. It does so thoroughly: chat, message_id, size (with concrete values and implications), and story_id (including its relationship to chat and a pointer to tg_stories). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Look at') and specific resources ('photo, sticker or video frame'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by contrasting tg_media and tg_download. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this whenever the question is about what is *in* a picture.' It also names alternatives (tg_media for listing, tg_download for saving) and clarifies that tg_view is the one for seeing content. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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