telegram_alias_candidates

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

The annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond those by explaining exactly what kind of tokens appear in the results and why they are considered high-precision ('코드가 정답을 알려주므로 고정밀'). This provides useful transparency beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief definition of the candidate pattern, a usage instruction, and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 is simple, has an output schema so return-value details are covered, and the description includes all parameter meanings and defaults plus the intended next action. No critical operational context is missing.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by explaining each parameter in Korean with its meaning and default value: days (분석 기간, default 7), min_count (최소 등장 횟수, default 2), and top (상위 N개, default 40).

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 returns missing alias candidates and defines the exact inclusion criterion (text matching `이름(123456)` that the current dictionary fails to map). This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like telegram_add_alias, which it identifies as the follow-up registration tool.

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 gives clear context: it returns high-precision candidates for manual review and explicitly instructs the agent to register them via telegram_add_alias afterwards. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other sibling candidates tools like telegram_fp_candidates, but the usage chain is clear.

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