telegram_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely useful trait: output is sanitized of secrets and messages. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the shape or contents of the returned state, or mention any side effects, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, the target, and the key output constraint are all packed into one clause. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 and no annotations, the description should ideally say what the diagnostic actually returns and confirm it is a safe read. It only states what it does not return, leaving the output shape and read-only nature for the agent to assume, which is adequate but not fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-level detail could be added beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('local runtime/config/storage state'), which clearly separates it from the chat-oriented siblings like search_chat and read_chat. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the domain difference is discernible from the wording.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named. The diagnostic framing implies it is used for troubleshooting rather than normal chat retrieval, but the agent must infer this from the resource noun alone.

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