tg_alert

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the delivery channel and non-chat scoping, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or delivery behavior beyond that.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The main action and the key exclusion are both front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter tool is mostly described well, but the lack of any parameter semantics and absence of differentiation from tg_notify leaves minor gaps. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumentted 'text' parameter. It does not specify format, length, or content expectations, though the tool name and 'notification' wording imply the text is the alert message.

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 verb ('Send'), the resource ('a notification'), and the channel ('through the agent's own bot'). The parenthetical exclusion ('not their chats') helps distinguish this from chat-sending siblings. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 a useful negative boundary ('not their chats') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like tg_notify or tg_send. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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