telegram_sync

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully covers behavior: it checks daemon status, skips sync if daemon is active (reports DB freshness), and performs collection only when daemon is not running. Also notes session conflict issues. This is comprehensive for a potentially destructive operation.

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?

Well-organized with purpose, usage context, and parameter details. However, it includes mixed Korean and English which may reduce clarity for non-Korean agents. Still, each sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as true) and two parameters with defaults, the description covers all necessary information: purpose, prerequisites (daemon status), parameter semantics, and invocation behavior. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but description provides clear parameter explanations in the Args section: 'minutes: 수집 대상 시간 범위(분). 기본 60.' and 'per_channel_limit: 채널당 최대 조회 메시지 수. 기본 500.' This adds meaning beyond schema defaults.

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 purpose: '최근 N분간의 텔레그램 메시지를 수집·구조화해 로컬 DB에 저장합니다.' This translates to collecting, structuring, and storing recent Telegram messages, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like telegram_messages (retrieval) or telegram_send_me (sending).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use ('데몬이 없을 때만 직접 1회 수집합니다' - only collect directly when daemon is absent) and when not to ('평소엔 백그라운드 수집 데몬이 DB를 채우므로 수동 호출은 보통 불필요합니다' - manual call usually unnecessary). Also mentions daemon behavior and potential conflicts.

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