telegram_send_voice

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context: accepted source types (local path, URL, file_id) and return format (JSON with Message object or error). No contradictions.

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 sentences plus a concise args/returns list. No filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers input format, required/optional params, accepted sources, and return type. Lacks size limits or encoding details but adequate for a simple send operation with output schema.

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?

Despite low schema description coverage (0%), the description explicitly mentions the required params (chat_id, voice) and optional ones (caption, duration) and adds detail about voice sources. This compensates well.

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 voice message (.ogg/Opus) to a Telegram chat', specifying the format and distinguishing it from siblings like send_audio or send_document. The verb 'send' and resource 'voice message' are specific.

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 implied by the name and description but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternative send tools (e.g., send_audio). No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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