list_web_logins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description clarifies what counts as a 'web login' (sites authorized via Telegram login), which is modest added context, but says nothing about scope, freshness, or whether revoked entries appear.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 parameters, an output schema describing the return values, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. It stops short of noting how the results relate to revoke_web_logins, which is the one meaningful omission.

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 disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related gaps exist.

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 (websites signed into via 'Log in with Telegram'), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the obvious sibling revoke_web_logins or say how it relates to session-management tools.

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 statement and no mention of the alternative action (revoke_web_logins) for acting on the listed entries. The use case is only inferable from the phrase 'websites you signed into'.

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