resolve_chat

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the operation is read-only and that missing entities cause a Telethon exception (ValueError/UsernameNotOccupiedError) to be propagated to the owner. This is useful context beyond the schema, though it could mention authorization or network behavior.

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 three short lines: the main purpose, a compact signature, and an error-handling note. No filler; information is 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?

With a single parameter and an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, accepted input formats, and what happens on failure. It does not need to list return fields since the output schema exists.

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 only defines ref as a string, but the description defines accepted forms: username, link, id, or exact name. This gives the agent necessary meaning for the parameter.

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 opens with 'Точный resolve чата/юзера' specifying exact resolution of chat/user and enumerates accepted reference types (username/link/id/exact name). This makes the tool's purpose specific and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like find_chat.

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 this is for exact lookup by reference but does not state when to prefer it over find_chat or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'read-only' note helps but doesn't provide explicit usage guidance.

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