Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_messagesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape, accepted entity formats, and limit bounds, which is useful. It does not mention ordering, authorization needs, or error behavior, but for a read-only retrieval tool the gaps are moderate.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, then Args, then Returns. Every sentence provides useful information with no repetition or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, max, and return fields. It omits ordering and failure handling, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates meaningfully: entity accepts a username, chat ID, or title; limit has a default of 20 and a max of 100. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent messages from a Telegram chat/channel/group.' It clearly indicates the tool retrieves rather than searches, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus search_messages, search_dialogs, or get_message_document. The description implies it is for fetching recent messages from a known entity, but it provides no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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

• search_dialogsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior details: query is a partial name match, limit caps results, and the result is a list of matching dialogs with specific fields. However, it does not disclose case sensitivity, empty-result behavior, ordering, or any read-only guarantee. This is adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero annotation support.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary is front-loaded, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly extract the tool's behavior.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and the shape of results. It is complete enough to call correctly. Minor gaps include the absence of explicit routing between dialog search and message search, and edge-case behavior, but these do not prevent effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: query is defined as 'Part of the name to search for,' and limit is defined as 'Max results (default 10).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, including the partial-match behavior and the cap semantics. It does not mention whether username is also matched, but the key parameters are clearly explained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a concrete resource ('chats, channels, or groups') with a clear scope ('by name'). This differentiates it from sibling tools such as search_messages, which targets message content, and get_messages, which retrieves messages. The output return list of dialogs with id, name, username, type further reinforces the purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to find chats, channels, or groups by name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as 'use search_messages to search within messages,' nor does it state when this tool should not be used. Usage context is clear but the guidance on choosing between siblings is left implicit.

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

• get_message_documentA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (filename, mime_type, size_bytes, content) and notes that an error field is returned if extraction is not possible. This gives the agent a clear model of expected behavior, though it does not cover edge cases like permission failures or unsupported file types.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It explains both parameters and describes the return payload. It could be slightly richer by mentioning likely failure modes or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'entity' is explained as chat username or chat ID with an example, and 'message_id' is described as the ID of the message containing the document. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and titles.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action: 'Download and extract text from a document attached to a specific message.' This identifies the resource (document attached to a message) and the operation (download/extract text), and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_dialogs, get_messages, and search_messages.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need the text content of a document attached to a specific message. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• search_messagesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation, explains that results are capped at 100, and lists the returned message fields. It doesn't discuss authentication or edge cases like case-sensitivity, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, concise Args section, and Return section. Every line adds needed information and the most important scope statement is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers entity addressing, query semantics, limit behavior, and return fields. It only lacks explicit guidance for ambiguous title fragments or when to prefer a sibling tool, which are minor gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully documents every parameter: entity accepts username, ID, or title fragment; query is a keyword or phrase; limit has a default of 30 and max of 100. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description starts with a specific action: searching messages by keyword inside a specific Telegram chat/channel/group. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_dialogs (search dialogs) and get_messages (fetch messages) without needing to inspect schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The scope is explicit: this tool is for keyword search within a single entity, not across all chats or for retrieving messages without a query. No alternative tools are named or excluded, which prevents a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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