telegram_health

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful context by stating that credentials and message data are not exposed. It also discloses that the optional check_connection parameter verifies the saved TDLib session, clarifying the tool's behavioral scope.

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 deliver the purpose, the safety guarantee, and the optional verification behavior with no redundancy. The core diagnostic purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 simple, read-only health diagnostic with one optional parameter and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It could specify what form the diagnostic result takes, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a health check keep this from being a significant gap.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema with a description and default, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds marginal context by linking check_connection to session verification, but no additional depth is needed beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Diagnose') and a clear resource ('local Telegram plugin setup'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from all sibling Telegram operations, which are focused on data access or messaging rather than setup health.

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 diagnosing local plugin setup issues, which is distinct from the sibling tools' data-oriented functions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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