telegram_collect_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a heavy operation and requires consent, but does not disclose whether it's async, how long it takes, or effects like duplicate requests. Some transparency but gaps remain.

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 concise with three clear parts: main action, usage condition, parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 simple purpose (request background collection) and the existence of an output schema (not provided), the description adequately covers when and how to use it. It does not explain the return value, but that may be acceptable for a request-type tool.

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?

Only one parameter (days) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds full meaning: range (1-90), example (14 for 14 days), and purpose (retrospective collection days). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 requests the background daemon to retroactively collect older data. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like telegram_dismiss_backfill and telegram_status.

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 explicitly states it should only be called with user consent due to heavy operation, and references backfill_offer from telegram_status for context. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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