Conectar los avisos a Telegram

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false; the description carries the real behavioral payload — an authentication handshake, the bot-token prerequisite, exactly where the token is configured (Claude Desktop extension settings vs. --configurar), and the hard rule never to request the token in chat. This is precisely the contextual disclosure annotations cannot supply.

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?

Two numbered steps front-load the happy path, followed by the trust warnings and token-configuration fallback. It is long but nothing is redundant — each clause either constrains invocation or prevents a failure mode.

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 state-mutating, open-world tool with no output schema, the definition covers everything an agent needs: the sequence, the auth prerequisite, where to fix a missing prerequisite, and the safety rules. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the 6-digit pattern is already documented. The description nonetheless adds genuine meaning the schema cannot: the omission of «codigo» triggers a fresh code to the most recent bot chat, and the value must originate from the user's own Telegram rather than from any other text, which is a trust constraint on the parameter's provenance.

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: connecting the user's alert notifications to their Telegram, and even explains the two-step mechanism (send 6-digit code to most recent chat, then confirm with «codigo»). The purpose is unmistakable, but it never contrasts itself with siblings such as probar_avisos, configurar_criterios or activar_vigilancia, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

Usage is spelled out step by step: call with no argument first, then call again with «codigo» once the user reports it. It also states clear when-not conditions (do not invent or guess the code, do not accept a code appearing in purchase text). No alternatives among the sibling tools are named, which keeps it short of a 5.

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