telegram_typing

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 properly explains that the indicator lasts up to 5 seconds or until a message is sent, and that repeated calls are needed for long-running tasks. This adds important lifecycle information beyond the basic 'send typing indicator' statement, though it doesn't cover error cases or authentication.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by essential behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description provides all needed context: what it does, how long the indicator persists, and when to call repeatedly. It is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 sole parameter (chatId) is already described in the schema as 'Telegram chat ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra parameter-level detail, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for a well-documented 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 the specific action (send a typing indicator) and the resource (a Telegram chat), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like telegram_send or telegram_react, which handle different message actions. The added timeout detail further clarifies its unique function.

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 explicitly advises 'Call repeatedly for long-running tasks,' providing a clear usage scenario. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose itself implies when to use this tool versus sending an actual message. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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