telegram_classify_channels

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that it scans all channels, is slow, uses sampling, and classifies based on threshold. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies data (e.g., read-only) or any side effects. It is likely non-destructive but transparency could be improved by confirming safety.

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?

Description is concise with two paragraphs: purpose/scope and parameter details + usage note. It is front-loaded with the main function. Could integrate the scope limitation more succinctly, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (classification of many channels), the description covers purpose, scope, parameter behavior, and performance warning. Output schema exists, so return format is handled. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description explains all three parameters: sample (messages per channel), threshold (stock channel classification density), and min_mentions (minimum cumulative mentions). This adds essential meaning beyond default values and titles, fully compensating for schema gaps.

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?

Description states it scans all channels, measures stock mention density, and classifies channels as stock-focused vs macro/chat. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_channels (listing) or telegram_buzz_score (single-channel buzz). The specific verb 'scan and measure density' and resource 'all channels' make purpose evident.

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?

Description says 'scan all channels and is slow, use only when needed', providing clear usage context. It implies diagnostic purpose but does not explicitly list alternatives or when to avoid. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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