Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context about acceptable audio sources (URL or file_id), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, file size limits, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering basic safety, this earns a baseline score.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose upfront. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative about usage context. The structure is appropriate for a straightforward send operation.

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 annotations covering read/write and destructive status, an output schema exists (though not shown), and schema coverage is complete, the description provides adequate context for a basic send operation. However, it lacks important contextual details like file format restrictions, size limits, or error conditions that would be helpful despite the structured data.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation in Korean. The description only mentions 'URL 또는 file_id 사용 가능' which corresponds to the 'audio' parameter, adding minimal value beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter elaboration in the description.

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 action ('전송합니다' - send) and resource ('오디오 파일' - audio file) with the target context ('텔레그램 채팅' - Telegram chat). It distinguishes from siblings like 'telegram_send_message' or 'telegram_send_voice' by specifying audio files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'telegram_send_document' which could also handle audio files.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_send_voice' (for voice messages) or 'telegram_send_document' (for generic file uploads). It mentions URL or file_id usage but doesn't explain when one source type is preferred over the other or any prerequisites for using this tool.

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