telegram_start_polling

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that new messages are 'automatically injected into the terminal as user input', a key effect. However, it omits details about the continuous nature of polling, potential side effects, or how to stop it, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, both informative. The first sentence states purpose and typical usage cadence; the second explains the behavioral consequence. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it's needed, and what happens when enabled. It lacks explicit mention of the companion stop_polling tool, but sibling tool names partially fill that gap.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'interval' with its description and default value (2000 ms). The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Manually start auto-polling for Telegram messages'. It also adds context that polling starts automatically on MCP load, clarifying that this is a manual override. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like telegram_check_new, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'polling starts automatically on MCP load, so this is usually not needed' provides direct guidance on when not to use the tool. It implies usage only when manual restart is required, but does not mention alternative tools for checking messages, which is a minor gap.

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