Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• telegram_search_messagesC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or return format. Only states basic action without deeper context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, concise but lacks structure. Does not break down key details or parameter usage. Could be more informative without adding length.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Tool has moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists) but description is minimal. Does not explain return values or how search results are structured, leaving gaps for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%; description adds no explanation for the three parameters (query, limit, chat_id). The schema provides names and types but no semantic guidance.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action (Search) and resource (text), and distinguishes between global search and searching within a specific chat. However, 'allowed' is slightly ambiguous regarding permissions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like telegram_get_messages or telegram_get_message_context. Does not mention alternatives or provide when-not conditions.

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

• telegram_get_message_contextC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the returned order is guaranteed. The existence of an output schema mitigates some concerns, but the description adds minimal transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. While brief, it is front-loaded and not verbose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and a moderate output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter meanings or provide usage context, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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, but it does not explain any parameter. 'Target message' hints at message_id, and 'nearby messages' hints at after/before, but no semantics or default behaviors are provided. Parameters remain opaque.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the tool reads a target message with nearby messages in chronological order, distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegram_get_messages (likely returns messages without context) and telegram_search_messages. However, it could explicitly mention parameters (after, before) that define 'nearby'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as telegram_get_messages or telegram_search_messages. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without decision context.

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

• telegram_get_chat_infoB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states 'Return' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple get operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'basic metadata' includes) and parameter guidance, leaving some gaps for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It fails to mention the required 'chat_id' parameter or its format/meaning. The schema provides a title 'Chat Id' but the description adds no value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Return basic metadata for one allowed chat' clearly states the verb (return) and specific resource (basic metadata for one allowed chat). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like telegram_get_messages (which returns messages) and telegram_list_chats (which lists multiple chats).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for getting metadata of a single chat, contrasting with siblings that handle lists or messages. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any alternatives.

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

• telegram_list_chatsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and adds the access policy constraint. However, it omits details such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or what the output contains, leaving gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but fails to describe the return format or any filtering behavior beyond the access policy.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters (limit, archived). It does not mention them at all. While the parameter names are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no semantic value beyond what a user might guess.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Telegram cloud chats'), and adds a distinguishing constraint ('allowed by the local access policy'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like telegram_get_chat_info that retrieve details of a single chat.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telegram_get_chat_info or telegram_search_messages. The description lacks context for selecting the tool appropriately.

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

• telegram_get_messagesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states two important behaviors: messages are returned 'newest first' (ordering) and are 'without marking them read' (side effect). This is valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention other behaviors like pagination mechanics or error handling.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single 12-word sentence that packs purpose, ordering, and side effect without any filler. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description provides core information but lacks details on pagination (before_message_id), limit semantics, and prerequisites (e.g., chat must be allowed). It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for advanced usage. The output schema covers return structure, so that gap is partially filled.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The description only says 'Read messages from one allowed chat' without referencing chat_id, limit, or before_message_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no added semantics like how to paginate using before_message_id are provided.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Read messages', the resource 'from one allowed chat', and two key traits: 'newest first' and 'without marking them read'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like telegram_list_chats which lists chats, and telegram_search_messages which searches across chats.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for reading messages from a specific chat without marking them as read, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_search_messages or telegram_get_message_context. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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