telegram_send_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is supplemental. It does add real value beyond them: the 50 MB cap and the fact that the source may be either a local path or a fetched public URL (which explains the openWorld hint). It stops short of saying what happens on oversized or unreachable files, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: the core action and constraints come first, supported use cases second. No repetition of the name or schema fields, and every clause carries information.

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?

For a four-parameter send tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers action, input forms, and size limit. What is missing is failure behavior and the file-vs-photo boundary, both minor for a tool this simple.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the TELEGRAM_DEFAULT_CHAT_ID fallback and the caption length limit. The description only reinforces file_path semantics (absolute path or public URL) and adds the size limit; it says nothing about parse_mode or caption behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a document/file') plus the accepted input forms (absolute local path or public URL) and a size ceiling (max 50 MB). It implies the boundary with telegram_send_photo and telegram_send_message by naming documents/files rather than messages or images, but never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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 use-case list ('build logs, diffs, screenshots and reports') gives implied context for when this is the right tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of telegram_send_photo as the alternative for images — notable since 'screenshots' is listed as a use case here.

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