telegram_agent_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states that it 'classifies' and 'returns', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no state changes or side effects occur. This lack of explicit disclosure leaves behavior partially opaque.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output. Each sentence contributes essential information without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (TOOLSET, guardrails, memory_search_hint), and when to call it. It does not specify output structure or error scenarios, but given the tool's role as a router, the description is sufficiently complete for a user to understand its function.

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 50%: only 'text' has a description ('The incoming message text'), while 'chat_id' has none. The overall description references 'enrolled chat', making chat_id's purpose somewhat inferable, but it is not explicitly described, so parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 the tool's purpose: to classify conversation direction for an enrolled chat and return the active TOOLSET, guardrails, and memory_search_hint. It also specifies when to call it, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Call this on each incoming message before acting.' However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative routing tools, leaving some inference needed.

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