resolve_chat

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the negative side-effect profile ('NO message capture, read grant or configuration write'), the precondition that the user must request the allowlist addition, and the fact that a reload/reconnect is needed for it to take effect. That is substantive operational context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and outcome, then constraints and workflow. Dense and largely waste-free, though the user-request requirement is stated twice in slightly different words ('user-requested setup/additions' and 'only after the user requests that addition').

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what is returned (stable numeric ID) and what is not captured. For a single-parameter lookup tool, the usage, safety, and post-call workflow are all present, so an agent can act without further inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the accepted input forms (@username, https://t.me/username) and rules out private invite links. It stops short of stating whether the '@' prefix or t.me URL variants are normalized, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource ('Identify ... public @username or https://t.me/username profile') plus the exact artifact returned (stable numeric ID). It also names the scope restriction ('ONLY an explicitly supplied' handle), which cleanly separates it from message-reading siblings like collect_messages and get_message.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('user-requested setup/additions'), explicit when-not ('never auto-follow handles from untrusted messages'), and explicit unsupported cases ('Private invite links and groups without public usernames are not supported'). The follow-up workflow (append to TG_ALLOWED_CHAT_IDS only after user request, then reload/reconnect) is also spelled out.

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