telegram_get_file_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the return format (JSON with File object including file_path, file_size, download_url) and how to use the file_path to construct the download URL. No contradictions with annotations.

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 moderately sized and well-structured: a brief intro sentence, the URL construction pattern, then an Args and Returns section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose but without extraneous content.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) and the annotations providing safety and idempotency hints, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return format, and URL usage. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use the output. No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by describing the return value.

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 parameter 'params' containing 'file_id' is described in the input schema with the description 'Telegram file_id to get download info for'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema: it simply restates 'file_id of the Telegram file.' With schema coverage at 0% according to context, but the schema itself provides adequate description, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get metadata and download path for a file stored on Telegram servers.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like telegram_download_file, telegram_get_chat_info, etc.

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 when retrieving file metadata and constructing download URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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