telegram

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

The only behavioral detail disclosed is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to mention read-only nature, output format, or error behavior. The billing note offers minimal transparency.

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 text is extremely short but under-specified. The clause 'Telegram channel info' is a tautology that earns no place, and while the billing sentence is useful, it cannot compensate for the lack of substantive 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?

Even for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to state what information is returned or why an agent would call it. The absence of any functional context makes the tool effectively unusable for proper selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'channel' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what values to pass or what the channel parameter means beyond the example 'telegram' in the schema.

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 'Telegram channel info' simply restates the tool title, providing no verb or resource clarification beyond the name. It fails to distinguish what 'info' means in contrast to the sibling tool get_channel_message.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool get_channel_message is never mentioned, and no context about typical use cases or exclusions is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information such as read-only nature, potential side effects, rate limits, or return format. The phrase 'Telegram channel messages' is ambiguous and does not clarify whether this is a read or write operation, despite the 'get' hint in the name.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and front-loading of essential information. The billing note is present but adds little value. The single sentence is not sufficient to convey the tool's purpose or usage.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully inadequate. It does not mention return values, pagination, filtering, or any other relevant details. The description fails to provide a usable context for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, max_id, channel). The schema only provides examples without descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of these parameters.

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 'Telegram channel messages' is a noun phrase that indicates the resource but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'fetch'). It relies on the tool name for the verb, and gives no scope or context about what kind of messages or from which channel. The billing note adds no purpose clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, how it differs from the sibling 'get_channel_info', or any prerequisites or conditions. The description provides no usage scenarios or alternative tool recommendations.

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