telegram_watch_status

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the disclosure burden alone. It hints at a per-account structure and watch timestamps but truncates before completing the thought, and says nothing about whether this is read-only, what a watch entry looks like, or what happens if nothing is being watched.

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 short, but it is literally truncated mid-word with an ellipsis, making the definition structurally broken rather than concise. Brevity here results from incompleteness, not from editing.

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 the only place an agent can learn what this returns, yet it stops at "when they were...". For a status/introspection tool whose entire value is the returned shape, this leaves the caller unable to predict the response.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema plus session-scoped framing is self-explanatory. Baseline 4 applies per the zero-parameter rule.

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 names the specific resource (Telegram chats this session is watching) and cross-references the sibling telegram_watch_chats, which distinguishes it from watch/unwatch tools. However the sentence is cut off mid-clause ("when they were..."), so the full purpose — per-account watch timestamps — is never actually stated.

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?

Naming telegram_watch_chats implies this is the read-side companion to the watch/unwatch actions, so an agent can infer the pairing. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus telegram_list_chats or telegram_list_accounts, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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