telegram_stop_polling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop auto-polling') but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, whether polling must already be active, or any impact on existing messages. This is a mutation tool, so more transparency would be expected.

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, clean sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It does not mention behavioral nuances like return values or prerequisites, but the description is arguably sufficient for a stop command. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids irrelevant parameter details.

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 'Stop' and a distinct resource 'auto-polling for Telegram messages.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools, particularly telegram_start_polling.

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 as the counterpart to telegram_start_polling, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. It provides only implied usage context.

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