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 and not destructive, which aligns with the 'send' action. The description adds the specific format requirement (.ogg OPUS), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the chat_id is invalid.

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 very concise - just one sentence stating the purpose and format requirement. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be more structured by separating format requirements from the main purpose.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema details provided in context, and annotations only covering basic safety hints, the description is incomplete. It mentions the format requirement but doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. The existence of an output schema (per context signals) reduces the need to describe returns, but parameter understanding remains inadequate.

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 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely missing from the schema. The tool description mentions '.ogg OPUS 형식' which relates to the 'voice' parameter, but doesn't explain any other parameters like chat_id, caption, parse_mode, or duration. With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description provides minimal compensation.

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' - sends) and resource ('텔레그램 채팅에 음성 메시지' - voice message to Telegram chat), specifying it sends voice messages to Telegram chats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like telegram_send_audio or telegram_send_video_note which also send media to chats.

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_audio or telegram_send_message. It mentions the required format (.ogg OPUS) but doesn't explain when voice messages are preferred over other message types or what distinguishes this from similar media-sending tools.

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