List downloads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the return payload (paths, sizes, source message), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or how the implicit limit interacts with the listing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and parenthesizes the returned fields, with no filler. It is efficient, though very terse given the tool's one undocumented parameter.

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 appropriately enumerates the returned fields, which is the most valuable part. However it omits pagination/limit behavior and any hint about where downloads are scoped, leaving gaps an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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?

There is a single 'limit' parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies defaults and bounds (1-500, default 50). The description never mentions limit, so it adds no meaning about what is being limited or what happens when more downloads exist than the cap.

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+resource ('List files downloaded by this server') and names the returned fields, which separates it from telegram_download_media (which fetches) and telegram_delete_download. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'downloaded by this server' scoping.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as telegram_download_media or telegram_delete_download. The scope phrase 'downloaded by this server' implies it is an inventory of prior downloads, but the agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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