List Telegram accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Return' aligns with a read operation. The description adds the scope of 'on this machine' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as order, empty-list behavior, or auth requirements. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but it's not beyond baseline.

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 a single, concise sentence (12 words) that immediately states the action and scope. No filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the return entity and scope. The absence of output details is acceptable, and the sibling list provides enough context for the agent to select it correctly.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rules, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't reduce that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Telegram accounts') with a clear scope ('currently signed in on this machine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like login and logout. It clearly states what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: when checking which accounts are signed in on the machine. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the simple nature of the tool makes the usage evident. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with related tools like get_me, so it's not a 5.

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