telegram_send_message

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals the 4096-character limit, the TELEGRAM_DEFAULT_CHAT_ID fallback, available parse modes, silent sending, link-preview disabling, reply behavior, and the JSON return format. It omits permission/error/rate-limit details, but for a straightforward send operation this is substantial. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact param list and a return line. Every line adds useful information; there is no filler 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?

For a simple six-parameter send operation, the description covers all parameters and the return value, and the output schema exists as a further reference. It lacks only peripheral operational details like authentication requirements or error scenarios, and the missing usage-guidelines context is already penalized separately.

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 explain every parameter, and it does. It adds meaning beyond the schema for all six params: text length limit, chat_id fallback semantics, parse_mode allowed values, behavior of both boolean flags, and reply_to_message_id meaning.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Send'), a resource ('Telegram chat, group, or channel'), and the payload type ('text message'). This distinguishes it from sibling media tools like telegram_send_photo or telegram_send_document, even without naming them.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as send_photo, forward_message, or send_poll. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and the word 'text'.

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