telegram-send-file

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has open world semantics. The description adds minimal context beyond that, such as the file types, but does not disclose potential behaviors like file size limits, required permissions, or error scenarios. The description is adequate but does not significantly enhance transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence (13 words) that immediately conveys the primary action. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information is included.

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 the tool has only 3 parameters and no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and file types. It does not explain return values (e.g., the sent message object), but for a simple file send operation, the description is reasonably complete. A minor gap is the lack of mention that the file must exist locally.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds a list of file types (photo, document, video, etc.), which provides some additional context for the filePath parameter, but it does not elaborate on chatId format or caption usage. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description offers marginal added value over the 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 explicitly states the action 'Send a file' and specifies the resource 'to a Telegram chat'. It lists example file types (photo, document, video, etc.), which clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like telegram-send-message or telegram-send-voice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain when to prefer telegram-send-file over telegram-send-album or telegram-send-document. The description lacks explicit 'when not to use' or context about prerequisites.

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