tg_folders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying exactly what each folder entry contains: pinned chats, explicitly included chats, exclusions, and automatic rules. No contradiction with 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core subject, and the second adds the necessary detail about folder contents. Every clause contributes distinct 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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns: folder membership, exclusions, and automatic rules. No critical detail is missing for correct invocation.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adds no confusing parameter-related claims. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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: Telegram folders/chat filters and the chats they contain. It distinguishes itself from editing or structural tools by focusing on folder membership, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so the action is slightly implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like tg_folder_edit or tg_structure. The description implies it is a lookup tool for folder contents, but it never states the condition, prerequisites, or which sibling tools to prefer in other situations.

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