tg_read_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering and date-range types, but does not mention limit behavior, error cases, or permission requirements. This is a read tool, so safety is less critical, yet gaps remain.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: ordering, peer formats, and date range. It lacks mention of limit and explicit guidance on when to use this vs tg_search, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains peer (numeric id, @username, 'me') and since/until (YYYY-MM-DD), but omits limit entirely. Three of four parameters receive partial or full semantic context, but limit's meaning is left to inference from its name.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('messages from a chat'), and adds ordering detail ('oldest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_send_message and tg_search.

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 useful context for usage: what 'peer' can be, and the date format for since/until. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with tg_search or state when to choose one over the other, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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