telegram_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Send a message to a Telegram chat' without mentioning potential failures, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether it triggers typing status). This is minimal and fails to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and resource. While it is short, it does earn its place by clarifying the tool's purpose. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 with only two required parameters and no output schema, so the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., message length limits, error handling). The absence of usage guidelines and behavioral details makes it less complete in context.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions for chatId and text. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is self-explanatory, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 message') and the resource ('a Telegram chat'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_read and telegram_send_photo, implying it is the basic text-sending tool. However, it could be more explicit that it sends a plain text message, not a photo or other media.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that telegram_send_photo should be used for images, or that telegram_read should be used for reading messages. The sibling context exists but the description itself provides no usage direction or exclusions.

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