get_chat_administrators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it returns a list, but it is consistent with the annotations. No extra details about permissions, pagination, or error handling are provided, but the annotations carry the safety burden.

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 a single, grammatically correct sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the return intent ('list of administrators') and is safe to invoke. It could be more complete if it mentioned that this works for any chat (public, group, supergroup) or explicitly noted that no admin rights are needed, but these are implied by the domain context.

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 covers the only parameter (chat_id) with a description 'Chat ID or @username' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of administrators in a chat'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chat_member (single member) or get_chat_member_count. The phrase 'list of administrators' is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., 'use get_chat_member for a single admin') or prerequisites (e.g., 'requires admin rights'). The usage context is only implied by the name and resource.

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