tg_admin_log

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by requiring admin permissions and clarifying that it retrieves specific admin action types and their timestamps.

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 compact, front-loads purpose and access requirements, and then presents a clean Args list with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the purpose, required permissions, and parameter semantics. Missing details such as default behavior, pagination, or exact return format are minor because the task and inputs are well specified.

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 must compensate, and it does: each parameter gets a meaningful explanation—chat identifies the target, limit controls event count, query filters by text, and admins restricts to specific people. Some semantic ambiguity remains (e.g., what text the query matches, or whether admins are usernames or IDs), but the coverage is solid.

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 as an admin log for a group or channel, listing the specific event types returned (deleted, banned, promoted, renamed) and the time aspect. It reads as an unambiguous retrieval operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like tg_actions or tg_events.

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 states a concrete prerequisite: 'Needs admin rights in that chat.' This gives the agent a clear condition for when the tool is usable. It does not discuss alternatives or suggest when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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