telegram_list_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses the return fields (messageId, caption, filename, size, duration) but omits critical details such as required authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only (no destructive hint). The term 'récentes' (recent) is vague without reference to the 'limit' parameter.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and next step. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words 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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists return fields, which compensates for the missing output schema, and provides workflow guidance. However, it lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., no videos found, pagination, error conditions), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('chat' and 'limit'), so the description adds minimal extra value. It re-emphasizes the chat context but does not provide additional syntax or behavior details beyond what the schema offers, resulting in no significant enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool lists recent videos from a Telegram chat, channel, or group, and specifies exactly what is returned (messageId, caption, filename, size, duration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_download_video and Facebook-specific tools by focusing on listing, and the name matches the functionality.

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 directly advises the user to subsequently use telegram_download_video with the selected messageId, providing clear workflow guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, but given that all siblings are either download or platform-specific, the context is well implied.

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