ask_via_telegram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the long-poll waiting behavior, possible timeout, and instructions on timeout recovery. It also describes the return structure in detail, including fields like 'answered', 'timeout', 'via', etc. No contradictions.

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 for the amount of information given, with a clear structure separating purpose, usage, and return values. It uses bullet points effectively. Slightly verbose in parts but overall efficient.

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, the description thoroughly explains return values and types. It covers behavioral nuances (long-poll, timeout), parameter combinations, and error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters, it provides complete contextual information.

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 add meaning. It explains that 'options' are displayed as numbered buttons, 'allow_free_text' permits free input alongside buttons, and 'question' is the prompt. It also clarifies behavior when options is empty. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 that the tool sends a question via Telegram and waits for a reply (long-poll). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'notify_telegram' by being interactive and waiting for user input, and from 'check_config' by being unrelated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user needs to choose from options instead of a terminal popup. It also explains how to use options and free text, but does not explicitly mention when not to use. However, the guidance is clear and practical.

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