telegram_send_sticker

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool uses a file_id or .webp URL and returns a JSON message object or error, which gives some insight into behavior but no additional side-effect details (e.g., that it sends a message to a chat publicly).

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 (two sentences plus Args/Returns block) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It omits unnecessary detail but could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 simple tool with annotated schema and output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuance like error handling or rate limits, which are not critical but would enhance completeness.

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 already contains descriptions for chat_id and sticker. The tool description merely restates 'chat_id and sticker file_id or URL', adding no new semantics beyond the schema. With schema description coverage effectively handled by schema, baseline is 3.

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 action ('Send a sticker') and the resource ('Telegram chat') with specific input type (file_id or .webp URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_send_photo or telegram_send_video by focusing on stickers.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_photo, send_document) or when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or expected use cases.

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