send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions waiting for a reply and the timeout parameter, but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or destructive behavior. Transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a structured docstring format (Args section). Every sentence adds value, with 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 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description covers the main inputs adequately. It does not describe the return value, but that is mitigated by the output schema. Missing details on prerequisites or edge cases are minor gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds critical meaning: bot as Bot username, message as text, timeout as seconds. This compensates well, though bot format (with/without @) could be clearer.

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 'Send a message to a Telegram bot and wait for its reply,' specifying the verb (send), resource (message to a Telegram bot), and behavior (wait for reply). It is distinct from the sibling tool get_history.

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 usage (send and wait for reply) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The context of a single sibling reduces the need, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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