telegram_get_me

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

The description discloses a privacy-relevant behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the phone number is intentionally omitted. This adds useful context about what will not be returned. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 two brief sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional privacy note earns its place by disclosing an important omission.

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 identity tool, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about what fields are returned besides the phone number omission, but the low complexity and annotation coverage make the description adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no param documentation is needed.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: the authenticated personal Telegram account. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which focus on chats, messages, and media.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving identity details of the current authenticated account, and the sibling tool names show everything else targets chats or messages. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer alternatives.

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