telegram_status

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explains health triage behavior, requires passing recovery.instruction through unchanged, and forbids terminal-command guidance. No contradictions exist.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences in Korean. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete triage rules and an explicit boundary. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, expected status values, user-facing actions, and a clear prohibition. Nothing essential 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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameters to document. The baseline for param-less tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics and user handling instead.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns login/collection status and background daemon status. It also names the meaningful fields (status, last_error.code, recovery.instruction), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that send, sync, or search data.

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 intended use is evident: check this tool for login/collection/daemon health. It gives strong post-invocation guidance – surface recovery.instruction verbatim, direct users to LeetKit Manager diagnostics/support, and never provide terminal commands – but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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