tg_admin_log

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the auth requirement and the kind of events returned. It stops short of mentioning whether the operation is read-only, the ordering, or the behavior with insufficient permissions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 description is exceptionally concise: a one-sentence lead followed by four one-line parameter explanations. Every sentence carries useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, there is no need to describe return values in the text. The description covers purpose, auth requirement, and all parameters adequately for a straightforward log-retrieval tool. It lacks examples or edge-case details, but these are not essential for basic use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by giving all four parameters ('chat', 'limit', 'query', 'admins') short, meaningful explanations that go beyond the raw type information. This makes the parameters easy to understand.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the admin log of a group or channel, with examples of event types (deleted, banned, promoted, renamed) and time. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is distinct from sibling tools like tg_events or tg_activity.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (needs admin rights) and implies the tool is for inspecting admin actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as tg_events or tg_activity, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback guidance.

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