arvan_notify_telegram

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false). The description adds that bot_token and chat_id fall back to environment variables, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, synchronous behavior, or return values.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that front-load the primary action ('Send a Telegram message') and then provide fallback details. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), but the description omits any mention of the return value or expected confirmation. It also does not cover potential errors (e.g., invalid token). Still, it covers the core action and fallback behavior, making it minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0% per context, but the description adds fallback semantics for bot_token and chat_id, which is beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not explain the 'text' parameter or validate its format, so it only partially compensates.

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 action ('Send a Telegram message via a bot'), which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling notification tools like arvan_notify_email, arvan_notify_slack, and arvan_notify_webhook.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other notification channels. It mentions fallback behavior but does not help an agent choose between Telegram, email, Slack, or webhook.

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