telegram_check_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some transparency by indicating the tool is a quick check and does not retrieve all messages, implying a lightweight, likely read-only operation. However, it does not specify the return type (e.g., boolean, count) or whether any side effects occur (e.g., marking messages as read), leaving important behavioral details undefined.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns or how to interpret its result. It does not state whether the result is a boolean, message count, etc. Given the low complexity (0 params), the missing return-value information is a significant gap that limits the agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and there is no ambiguity about inputs.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('new messages from Telegram'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool telegram_get_messages by explicitly noting it does not retrieve all messages. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 phrase 'Quick check... without retrieving all of them' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when a lightweight presence check is needed rather than full message retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the contrast with 'retrieving all' strongly implies it.

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