tg_list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the ordering ('newest first') and id type ('numeric ids'), but leaves 'recent' undefined and does not state whether the operation has side effects. Adequate for a simple read-only list but not rich in detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, ordering, and id format. Missing details like limit parameter explanation and usage guidance leave minor gaps, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving its meaning to be inferred from the name and default. The parameter semantics are not enhanced.

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 (List), names the resource (Telegram chats), and adds scope constraints (recent, numeric ids, newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_read_chat or tg_send_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?

The description implies usage for obtaining chat IDs and recency order, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced.

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