telegram_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a side-effect-free read, whether it requires a prior telegram_connect, or what happens when no accounts are linked, and it only begins to describe the returned fields before being cut off.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and efficient in style, but it is truncated mid-phrase, which makes the entry structurally incomplete rather than concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for explaining what comes back. It names the id format (tg1, tg2, ...) and starts to describe the label field, but the truncation leaves the return shape and any remaining fields unexplained for this zero-param list tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Telegram accounts linked to LMCP on this Mac') and scopes it to the local Mac, which distinguishes it from the many other account-listing siblings such as whatsapp_list_accounts. However, the sentence is truncated mid-thought ('the label the user gave...'), so the scope statement is incomplete.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of siblings like telegram_connect, telegram_disconnect or set_default_telegram_account that an agent would need to pick between. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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