list_dialogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — archived chats are excluded by default and can be re-included — but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication/prerequisite state, rate limits, or result ordering/pagination limits beyond the ordering note.

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 the purpose and routing hint in the first two sentences, then a short Args block. It is appropriately sized; the only minor redundancy is that the Args list repeats information inherent in the parameter names.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers the tool's behavior and all inputs adequately for a read-only listing call. It stops short of noting pagination/truncation behavior or prerequisite auth state, which an agent might want when a long dialog list is expected.

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 compensate, and it documents all three parameters (limit as max dialogs, unread_only as unread filter, include_archived with its default of excluded). The explanations are brief and largely restate the names, but they cover every parameter and supply the non-obvious default behavior of include_archived.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List your Telegram chats/channels') and adds the ordering ('most recently active first'), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can immediately distinguish it from search_messages, read_messages, or unread_summary.

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?

It gives an explicit purpose in context: 'Use this to find the numeric chat ids you need for alert rule scopes,' which ties it to the alert-rule workflow. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g., when you already know the chat id or want message content, use read_messages/search_messages).

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