telegram_collect_history

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

The annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond these flags: it is a background daemon request, it is a heavy operation, and it requires user consent. This meaningfully informs the agent about side effects and caution needed.

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 and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then adds the critical usage condition (user consent) and the parameter explanation, with no wasted or redundant sentences.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema. It covers the core operation, the important consent prerequisite, the parameter range, and an example. Minor details such as how the background daemon reports completion are not described, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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 only provides the parameter name 'days' with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates well by explaining that days means the number of days to retroactively collect, providing a 1–90 range, and giving an example ('14면 최근 14일치'). This makes the parameter semantics clear.

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 function: asking a background daemon to retroactively collect older history data. It also distinguishes the tool by tying it to the backfill_offer state in telegram_status, making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 tells the agent when to call this tool: only when the user has been away longer than the default 7-day backfill and only with explicit user consent. It also explains when not to call it (without consent, due to heavy operation). It does not name alternative tools directly, but the usage conditions are clear.

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