telegram_sync

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already signal a write operation; the description confirms and enriches this by disclosing the session-ownership conflict with the daemon and the write-to-DB behavior. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by relevant guidance and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the daemon situation is spread across several sentences that could be tightened slightly.

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?

Complete for a moderate-complexity sync tool: it explains the daemon interaction, documents both params, and relies on the existing output schema for return values. No critical gaps for correct invocation, though permissions/auth are not mentioned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. Both parameters are documented with meaning, units (minutes, count), and defaults (60, 500), fully compensating for the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: collect/structure Telegram messages over the last N minutes and persist them to a local DB. The purpose is unambiguous, but it doesn't differentiate from overlapping siblings like telegram_collect_history or telegram_messages — the description never names a sibling it is not.

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?

Exceptionally explicit. It gives the when (no daemon running), the when-not (daemon active), the why (session ownership conflict), and the fallback behavior (skip sync, report DB freshness only). This is the strongest part of the definition.

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