Telegram auth status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully signals that the response indicates which login step is required, but it does not enumerate the possible steps or explain what a signed-out result looks like, so the agent must infer the recovery path.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste: the capability comes first and the usage trigger second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations explaining returns, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a high level (signed-in flag plus required login step). Naming the concrete step values would close the remaining gap for this small diagnostic tool.

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 is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless status probe and adds no misleading argument expectations.

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 states a specific check (whether the Telegram session is signed in) and an additional output (which login step is required). It is clearly distinct from the mutating siblings auth_start, auth_code, auth_password and auth_logout, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 entry condition: 'Start here if Telegram tools return an authentication error.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool, but it does not say when to skip it (e.g. once already signed in, proceed directly to discover_chats).

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