tg_participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower here. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly which member attributes are returned, including the conditional 'phone when visible' and role variations like owner/admin/custom rank. It does not disclose pagination or error behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core result summary and the most important member fields, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. Minor redundancy between 'Members of a group or channel' and the chat parameter explanation, but overall it is tightly structured.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job conveying both the return content and the input formats. It lists the member fields, the accepted chat identifier forms, the limit semantics, and the query filter. It does not specify the exact return shape (e.g., list vs. object) or explain requiredness/defaults, but the essential calling contract is clear enough for an agent to use it 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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains all three parameters: chat accepts id, @username, or exact title; limit controls how many members; query filters by name or username. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it omits details like the default limit value and any bounds or case-sensitivity behavior.

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 identifies the resource being accessed (members of a group or channel) and enumerates the specific data returned (username, direct chat link, phone when visible, role, last-seen, bot/premium flags). It is distinguishable from siblings like tg_person and tg_contacts, though it does not name them explicitly. A slightly stronger explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' would make it a 5.

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 when to use this tool: when you need members of a group or channel and their reach/contact details. It does not contrast with alternatives such as tg_person, tg_contacts, or tg_chat_info, nor does it state when not to use it. The parameter guidance (chat, limit, query) gives practical usage context but no explicit selection rules.

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