Send Telegram message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the user always receives an audit copy of messages sent to others, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not address error conditions or prerequisites like 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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No wasteful repetition or fluff.

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 has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention the return value or success indication. It covers the main behavior and the audit copy, but omits what the agent can expect as a response (e.g., success message, error handling). For a simple send tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'to' or using 'me' messages the user, and by directing to list_recipients for valid names/tags, which goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 tool sends a Telegram message to the user or a named/tagged person. It specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'Telegram message', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_recipients by explaining how to specify recipients.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., when the user asks to be messaged, pinged, notified, etc.) and mentions using list_recipients to see valid recipients. It also explains the behavior of the 'to' parameter. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions, the context is clear.

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