tg_bot_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance not captured by annotations: the command list is contingent on the bot being the agent's own bot. This is meaningful additional context.

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 a single sentence and reasonably compact. It is slightly awkward in phrasing ('Name, about and description'), but it front-loads the return content and the key conditional about command lists.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: parameter formats, language code behavior, and what 'bot you own' means operationally. It is adequate for a very simple read-only tool but incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it does not. It never clarifies what format bot should take (ID, username, handle) or what lang_code controls. Both parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (a bot the agent owns) and the fields returned (name, about, description, command list). It is clear enough to distinguish from editing tools like tg_bot_edit, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not name sibling alternatives.

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 usage context: it applies to bots the agent owns, and the command list is only included when the bot is the agent's own. However, it does not specify when to choose this over related tools such as tg_bot_edit or tg_capabilities, nor does it state exclusions.

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