get_chat_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is read-only, what kind of data is returned, whether it can accept a username versus numeric ID, or any side effects. The phrase 'Get details' implies a read operation but offers no concrete behavioral information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact, though it could have used the same brevity to include more meaningful detail about what 'details' means.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: the agent knows what to target and via the schema knows the parameter format. However, the lack of any information about the output or richer detail semantics leaves meaningful ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.

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 input schema already documents chat_id as 'Chat ID or @username' with full coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The mention of 'specific chat' loosely maps to the parameter but does not clarify formats, edge cases, or usage beyond the 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 clear verb and resource: 'details' for a specific chat. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_chats or get_message, but the resource and intent are clear enough for basic selection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, preconditions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and description alone.

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