get_input_peer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the return value is a dict with an underscore key that is meant for 'kwargs_json' in invoke_raw calls. This reveals output structure and integration, which is beyond what the annotations convey.

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 short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the return usage following immediately. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only utility with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and return integration. However, the lack of parameter clarity prevents a perfect score, as the agent might not know what exactly to pass for 'chat'. Overall, it is complete enough for a low-complexity helper tool.

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 0% description coverage for the 'chat' parameter, and the description only says 'для чата' (for chat) without explaining the accepted formats (e.g., numeric ID, username, or both). With the schema allowing integer or string, the ambiguity is unresolved. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Получить InputPeer для чата' (get InputPeer for a chat), which identifies both the action and the resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying that it is needed for raw API calls, setting it apart from higher-level tools like get_chat_info or resolve_username.

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 explicitly says the InputPeer is 'нужен для raw API вызовов' (needed for raw API calls) and that the result can be placed into 'kwargs_json for invoke_raw'. This gives clear usage context and ties it to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the raw-API anchor is sufficient for most use cases.

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