telegram_send_and_wait_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the instant ACK mechanism, and that it returns reply text plus ack_message_id for later editing. It does not cover timeout/error behavior, but the schema documents waitTimeoutSeconds partially, and the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compressed into a few sentences, each providing unique value: purpose, media options, input constraints, ACK behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly long but no wasted words.

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's complexity (nested media object, blocking behavior, ACK, no output schema), the description explains the return value and when it returns. It does not explicitly mention the timeout outcome but the schema covers waitTimeoutSeconds. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to combine text and media ('text only, media only, or media + caption together') and clarifying that 'message' serves as a caption when media is attached. It also emphasizes the 'either url or base64Data' constraint for the media object.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Send a message to Telegram and block until a reply arrives in the same chat.' This distinguishes it from siblings like send_telegram_notification (which presumably does not wait) and telegram_edit_message. It also enumerates supported content types (text, photo, audio, document), making the scope precise.

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 implies when to use the tool ('block until a reply arrives') and that it supports text/media combinations, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like send_telegram_notification. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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