Send message

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint the schema lacks (~30 MB attachment cap) and states the success shape ('send result dict'), but says nothing about Telegram rate limits, auth/permission requirements, or the reversibility of a sent message.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome in the first sentence, then one focused sentence on attachment sourcing, then a doc link. It is efficiently sized, though the data-URI explanation partially duplicates the schema's own files description.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still adds the success shape and attachment constraints. It is largely complete for a send tool, with minor gaps around message-size limits and the absence of any routing cue versus the other send_* siblings.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the files data-URI form and adds the size ceiling, but contributes little beyond what the schema entries already say for chat_id, message, parse_mode, and reply_to_id.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Send text and optional attachments to a chat') and covers the scope of the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like send_rich_message, send_message_to_phone, or edit_message, so the agent must infer which send variant applies.

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 gives useful in-context guidance for one parameter ('use the data URI form to send a file the caller has in memory... without needing a public link'), which implies when that path is appropriate. It never says when to prefer this tool over send_rich_message or send_message_to_phone, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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