telegram_send_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that document accepts either a local file path or a public HTTP/HTTPS URL, that captions are limited to 0-1024 characters, that parse_mode controls formatting, and that the return value is a JSON Telegram Message object. It does not mention size limits, auth requirements, or the fact that chat_id is effectively required, but the core side effect is clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single purpose sentence followed by a tightly formatted parameter list. Every line earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of schema titles.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers all input parameters and the return type, which is enough for an agent to construct a valid call. The main gap is not clarifying that chat_id is required in practice despite the schema defaulting it to null, but overall the description is largely complete.

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 compensate, and it does: each of the five parameters receives a meaningful one-line explanation, such as document accepting a path or URL and chat_id accepting @channelusername. It doesn't mention defaults or that chat_id is required despite the schema marking it optional, but it adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific action ('Send a general file or document') with concrete examples (PDF, ZIP, source code, text file), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The word 'general' distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools like telegram_send_photo, telegram_send_audio, and telegram_send_voice.

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 for non-specialized files by saying 'general file or document', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself leaves routing to inference.

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