List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful traits — the result ordering and the set of fields returned — but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior or what "archived" scope actually includes (all chats vs. archived-only), which is the main ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering, then a three-line parameter glossary with zero filler. Every sentence adds either scope, usage routing, or parameter meaning.

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 return-value explanation is optional and the field list is a bonus. For a four-parameter filtered list tool with read-only annotations, the only meaningful hole is the undocumented limit parameter and the unstated meaning of "archived" scope.

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 must carry the parameter burden and largely does: query is defined as part of a title/username, kind enumerates the four accepted values, and active_since gets concrete format examples ("24h", "7d", "2026-09-01") that the schema does not supply. The limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving its default of 30 and maximum unbounded from the description.

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 ("List archived Telegram chats") plus the returned fields and sort order ("most recent first"), which is well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like chat_info or search_messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 it to find a chat id or to see when a chat was last active" gives clear positive usage context tied to concrete outcomes. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so no exclusions are provided.

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