telegram_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers very little beyond 'scrape'. It does not say whether this fetches live from Telegram, requires credentials or a configured session, how many messages 'recent' covers, whether results are cached, or what happens on failure. 'Scrape' also hints at a non-official access path without confirming it.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler. The tradeoff is that brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, but judged on structure alone it is tight and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but an unannotated mutation-adjacent scraping tool with a single undocumented identifier parameter needs far more. Volume of results, time window, channel identifier format, and access requirements are all missing, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly on the first try.

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 never mentions the sole 'channel' parameter. The critical ambiguity — whether the value is a bare handle (intelslava), an @-prefixed name, or a t.me URL — is left entirely unresolved, and the default 'intelslava' is only visible 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?

States a specific verb (scrape) and resource (recent messages from a Telegram OSINT channel), which is unambiguous and distinct from all siblings. It stops short of differentiating scope from any neighboring news/intel tools, but no sibling shares the resource, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 statement of when to use this versus news_analysis, gdelt_articles, deepstate_war_news, or the other text-collection tools in the sibling list. The only implied guidance is the word 'OSINT', leaving the agent to guess at the use case and any prerequisites.

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