tg_actions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are ordered oldest first, all writing calls are logged, and failed calls are included with their error. This goes beyond the annotations.

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: a concise definition, a useful distinction from the sibling, an explicit usage hint, and compact parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes value with no fluff.

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 still covers what the tool returns (audit log entries, including failures with errors), ordering, and filtering options. For a read-only list tool with four optional parameters, this is complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It explains all four: limit, since with ISO and relative formats, method filtering, and chat substring matching. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 defines the tool as 'the audit log of every writing call, oldest first' and clearly differentiates it from sibling tg_events by contrasting what happened in Telegram versus what was done on the user's behalf. This allows an agent to immediately understand the tool's role.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to answer 'what did you send?' instead of guessing from memory, and names tg_events as the mirror image alternative. This provides clear selection guidance and distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling.

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