chat_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get details' and lists entity types, but does not disclose what 'details' includes, how the chat value is resolved, or how authorization failures or invalid references behave.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact and readable, though so terse that important semantic detail about the chat parameter was omitted.

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?

Despite the simple schema and existing output schema, the definition lacks essential invocation context: what format chat accepts, when to choose this tool over sibling information tools, and what 'details' covers. An agent can guess the broad intent but cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 single required parameter, chat, has 0% schema description coverage. The description implies chat can identify a user, bot, group, or channel, but it never states whether the value is an ID, username, or phone number, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 the operation precisely: 'Get details' and enumerates the target resource types: 'user, bot, group or channel.' This is clearly distinct from broad tools like list_chats or get_me, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_chats, get_participants, or get_me. The description only announces what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or what prerequisite information the caller needs.

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