telegram_audit_summaryCount calls per tool and outcome from the local Telegram audit log, plus first and last recorded call, so you can review agent activity without paging entries.
Counts per tool and per outcome from the local audit log, plus the first and last recorded call. Use it to see what an agent has actually done to the account, without paging through entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the source is the local audit log and the return shape is counts by tool and outcome plus first/last call, which helps an agent reason about what it will get back. It stops short of stating any retention/coverage window for the log.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The output content is front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case follows immediately, so an agent can decide relevance after one line.
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 parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so reasonably well (counts per tool, per outcome, first/last call). The one gap is that it never says how much history the local audit log covers, which an agent gauging the summary's significance would want to know.
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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the summary is unscoped, and nothing in the text misrepresents the empty schema.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Counts per tool and per outcome from the local audit log') and goes further to specify the exact aggregation output, including the first and last recorded call. This is far more precise than the title and lets an agent know it is a roll-up view rather than a raw listing.
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?
'Use it to see what an agent has actually done to the account, without paging through entries' states a clear use case and implicitly contrasts with entry-by-entry browsing. It does not name the sibling telegram_audit_log as the alternative for detail, so the when-not condition is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.