telegram_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the path restriction and acceptable chat formats but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behaviors. Basic transparency is present, but richer behavioral details are absent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and directly follows with the key constraint. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, the file location constraint, and accepted chat identifiers. It does not explain optional parameters (caption, reply_to), but these are fully documented in the schema, so completeness is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description largely repeats the parameter descriptions (chat format, path relative to download root) rather than adding new semantic layers. No additional meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool sends a file/document to a Telegram chat, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling telegram_send_message by explicitly focusing on file/document transmission.

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 explains when to use the tool by specifying the file must be under the MCP download root and how to provide the path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like telegram_send_message, but the core use case is self-evident and the path constraint provides practical guidance.

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