gc_telegram

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states it returns running/connected status but doesn't describe the exact return format, whether it's a health check, or if it triggers any side effects. Given this is a read-only status tool with no annotations, the disclosure is modest but adequate for the simple behavior described.

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?

One clean, efficient sentence that fully states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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 simple single-parameter status check with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is not specifying return values or what 'connected' means precisely, but for a poller status check this is fairly minor.

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 100% and there's only one parameter (action) constrained to 'status', which the schema already fully documents. With high coverage, baseline is 3; the description doesn't add extra semantics beyond what the schema states about the action parameter.

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 is specific with a clear verb+resource+outcome: returns whether the Telegram bot poller is running and connected. It distinguishes itself from the many gc_* siblings by explicitly stating it's a status check for a specific component.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gc_beat or gc_ticker, which may also relate to system status. There's no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention, though the specific 'Telegram bot poller' scoping implies it's only for this subsystem.

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