tg_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content (pinned chats, exclusions, rules) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a simple read tool, the lack of such statements is a minor gap.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first line. The second sentence adds useful detail about the folder contents without any redundant or fluffy language. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what folders are and what data is included, leaving return-format details to the output schema. No further context is needed for an agent to understand this tool's role.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers everything (100% coverage). Per the rubric, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because no parameters exist, which is appropriate.

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 resource as 'Telegram folders (chat filters)' and states what it provides: which chats each folder holds. It distinguishes from siblings like tg_folder_edit (which edits folders) and tg_dialogs (which lists chats). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies this tool is for reading folder structures and their chat memberships, which gives context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like tg_folder_edit for modifications. Usage guidance is thus implied rather than stated.

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