telegram_list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names what comes back (unread counts, last message preview) and hints at ordering, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination/limits, or the need for a connected Telegram account. Reasonable partial coverage, not enough to be strong.

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, but it is clipped mid-word ('newes...'), so the structure is incomplete rather than tight. Size is appropriate for what is present.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it partly does by naming unread counts and message previews. However, the truncation leaves the sort order, result limits, and account/auth prerequisites unspecified for an agent that needs to call this correctly.

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 no parameter semantics to document and the schema is trivially complete. Nothing in the description is needed to compensate here.

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 ('Lists your Telegram chats') and enumerates the resource subtypes (people, groups, channels), which separates it from telegram_read_messages and telegram_search_messages. It stops short of a 5 because the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named, and the description is visibly truncated mid-word ('newes...'), cutting off the ordering detail.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (telegram_search_messages, telegram_read_messages, telegram_list_accounts). The mention of unread counts weakly implies an overview use case, but the agent must infer it.

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