telegram_watch_chats

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 does disclose the key trait that notifications are session-scoped ('tell this session') and push-based, but it says nothing about how long a watch persists, how to select the 'chosen chats' when the schema has zero parameters, or how the arrival is signaled to the agent.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the text is cut off mid-word ('kee...'), so the one sentence present is effectively incomplete. The orientation is right; the execution is not.

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 zero-parameter subscription tool with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still needs to know how to react to an incoming notification and how this pairs with telegram_unwatch_chats/telegram_watch_status. Neither is covered, and the truncation leaves the description under-specified.

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?

With 0 parameters the baseline is 4, but the description actively references 'chosen Telegram chats' while the schema exposes no way to choose them, creating a mismatch the description never resolves (e.g., that selection happens elsewhere or defaults to all chats). That unexplained gap knocks it down a point.

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 action (register this session to be notified when new messages arrive in chosen Telegram chats), which is clearly distinct from telegram_read_messages and telegram_list_chats. It does not name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'so you do not have to kee[p polling]' implies the intended use case (push instead of repeated reads), but the sentence is truncated before the point lands. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of telegram_unwatch_chats or telegram_watch_status as the paired lifecycle tools.

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