List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond annotations: the allowlist/policy scoping and the fact that the default returns everything the account can see. It still says nothing about pagination, ordering, or why the limit caps at 500, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core resource definition front-loaded and the flag behavior following. No filler, though the last sentence slightly restates the includeAll default already implied by the second.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return shape or pagination behavior; combined with the undocumented limit and archived parameters, an agent has enough to call the tool but not to call it optimally.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and only explains includeAll. The other two parameters, limit (default 50, max 500) and archived, get no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent tuning the call.

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 dialogs') and enumerates what counts as a dialog (DMs, groups, channels), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like telegram_common_chats or telegram_folders, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description does give conditional guidance for the includeAll flag ('Set includeAll=false to only return allowlisted chats when a policy is configured'), which is genuine when-to-use advice. However, it offers no guidance on choosing this tool over sibling listings such as telegram_common_chats or telegram_search_users.

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