tg_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them by detailing what different link types return, how phone numbers with a plus are handled, how bare digits are interpreted as ids, and that non-Telegram URLs are merely reported as external rather than fetched.

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 appropriately detailed for the variety of accepted inputs, but every sentence earns its place. The one-line summary is front-loaded, and the subsequent paragraphs categorize inputs and behaviors clearly without padding or redundancy.

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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the input can be, what the tool returns for each major link type, how phone numbers are treated, and how external URLs should be handled. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with no additional information.

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?

The schema provides no description for the single `link` parameter, so the description must carry full semantic weight. It comprehensively defines accepted formats: t.me usernames, invite hashes, joinchat links, message links, addstickers links, phone numbers with a plus, bare digit ids, and non-Telegram URLs.

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 starts with a clear, specific statement of what the tool does: it resolves what a Telegram link or phone number points to, without side effects. It enumerates the exact link formats handled, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like tg_click, tg_join, or tg_send.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for resolving links/phone numbers) and explicitly excludes non-Telegram URLs by instructing to use a web tool only if the user asked. It does not name sibling Telegram tools as alternatives for actions like opening or joining, but the 'without opening, joining or saving anything' phrasing provides useful when-not guidance.

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