list_chat_folders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: the call does not alter folder configuration. It says nothing about pagination, return shape, ordering, or account requirements for a listing operation.

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 compact sentence with the non-mutating guarantee front-loaded and no filler. It is lean, though some of that leanness is under-specification rather than economy.

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 read-only listing with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return contents and the account parameter's role, which a caller would still have to guess.

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% and the single 'account' parameter has no title-level documentation beyond a default of empty string. The description adds no meaning about what account means or how it affects the listing.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Telegram chat folders), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns at a high level. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearby list_folder_chats or list_chats, but the resource is distinct enough to stand on its own.

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 on when to use this versus list_folder_chats (chats inside a folder) or list_chats, nor any mention of prerequisites. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name.

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