Inspect Local SQLite Cache Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces and adds value by stating it 'operates entirely offline without Telegram API calls,' which is useful behavioral context for a cache tool, though it does lean on what openWorldHint already implies.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is inspected before the usage hint and the offline note. Efficient, with only mild redundancy between the offline sentence and the openWorldHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose, scope, and usage. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic with full annotation coverage, this is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only minor gap being the absence of any note on how failure/degraded states are surfaced.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the schema or description to document beyond the empty args object.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('local SQLite/FTS5 archive') plus the concrete outputs it surfaces: integrity, database size, and active tool tier diagnostics. An agent can tell it apart from cache-related siblings like search_cached_messages and sync_chat_cache, though it doesn't name them directly.

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?

'Use to verify cache readiness before running local searches' gives a clear when-to-use condition that routes the agent to this tool ahead of a search. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the operative context is unambiguous.

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