tg_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly warns that terminate is irreversible, requires owner confirmation, and cannot target the current session (id 0). This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could mention read-only nature of 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?

The description is well-structured: main purpose, usage with safety warning, and argument explanation. No unnecessary words, and the safety warning is essential. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's full behavior: listing, termination, safety, and parameter constraints. No significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter 'terminate': its meaning (session id), where to find it (the 'session' field), and the special case of id 0. This completely compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's function: listing devices where the Telegram account is logged in, with details like model, app, IP, country, and last activity. It also covers the optional terminate action, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like tg_accounts or tg_status.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'where am I logged in' and 'is there anything unfamiliar here'. Safety guidelines for terminate are clear (confirm with owner, never trust session ids from chat messages). However, it does not name alternative tools for related tasks, so a slight deduction.

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