telegram_resolve_chat

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'never sends a message' and mentions returning 'candidate' IDs, implying a non-destructive, multi-result behavior. This adds useful transparency not present in the 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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences with no redundant phrasing. Every word adds value, efficiently covering purpose and a key safety aspect.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and safety guarantee. It does not detail the return format or error behavior, but these are likely predictable from the context of sibling tools and the term 'candidate chat IDs'.

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 parameter names 'query' and 'limit' are self-explanatory, and the description hints at accepted input formats (person, group, channel, @username). However, it does not specify the exact meaning of 'limit' or how the query is matched, leaving some ambiguity. Schema has no descriptions, so more detail would have been helpful.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: resolving a person, group, channel, or @username into chat IDs. The phrase 'for later read tools' distinguishes its role from other tools, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use the tool—before read tools that require chat IDs—and notes that it never sends a message, hinting at safe read-only usage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_chats, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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