telegram-report-story

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

The description discloses the multi-step flow behavior beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It explains the flow initiation and continuation but doesn't detail side effects or response format. Since annotations already indicate mutation, the description adds useful context.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains the multi-step flow. No wasted words, front-loaded key information. Perfectly concise for the complexity.

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 no output schema and openWorldHint, the description provides necessary context for the multi-step interaction. It explains the flow steps but could mention response expectations. Completeness is high for a tool with these constraints.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions already document parameters. The tool description adds limited extra meaning for the 'option' parameter (multi-step flow). The other parameters (chatId, ids, message) are adequately covered by schema. Baseline 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 (report a story) and specifies the unique multi-step option flow, distinguishing it from other reporting tools like telegram-report-spam. The verb 'report' and resource 'story' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: first call with empty option to start the flow, subsequent calls with base64 bytes from previous response. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the multi-step nature is clearly explained.

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