Refresh from Telegram

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it blocks and waits up to wait_seconds (capped at 300), single-chat refresh also picks up edits, and 'Never sends anything to Telegram' clarifies that readOnlyHint=false refers to local archive writes, not outbound sends. That said, it doesn't explain the archive-write side effects or whether refresh is safe to run concurrently.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core action, then the wait behavior, then the safety note. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers both parameters and the key blocking behavior; the only remaining gap is any hint about typical duration or failure handling when the wait times out.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does the needed work: 'chat' is explained as optional all-chats-vs-one-chat selector, and 'wait_seconds' is described as a wait bound with a max of 300 (a constraint absent from the schema). It doesn't say whether chat accepts a username, ID, or title, leaving the string-or-integer ambiguity unresolved.

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 — 'Fetch new messages from Telegram into the archive' — and scopes it ('all chats, or one chat'). An agent can distinguish this from get_messages or search_messages because the description makes clear it pulls new data into the archive rather than querying existing stored messages.

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?

Implies when to use it (to get new messages and edits into the archive) and notes that refreshing a single chat also captures recent-message edits, which is a useful contextual cue. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as search_messages or get_messages or states when not to refresh.

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