List All Telegram Chats and Channels

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies 'accessible chats' (scope) and 'pagination support,' which are not covered by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. It does not contradict any annotations. While it could mention rate limits or pagination mechanics, the read-only and idempotent nature is already disclosed, so this is sufficient.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary function (listing all accessible chats) and the second provides a usage hint. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description mentions pagination and gives a usage context, which is enough for an agent to decide when to call it. It does not explain how to use pagination parameters, but they are fully documented in the schema, so the description is adequately complete for its purpose.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including limit, account, archived, chat_type, with_about, unread_only, and unmuted_only. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all accessible chats, groups, channels, and direct dialogs' with pagination support, defining a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from single-chat fetch tools like get_chat by emphasizing 'all' and includes a usage hint about locating conversations by title or type, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides a clear usage context: 'Use when locating specific conversations by title or type.' This implies a use case but does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as search_messages or search_public_chats, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is present but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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