Fetch Recent Telegram Updates and Media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose the key side effect: all media is automatically downloaded to local disk and paths are returned. It does not repeat the markAsRead offset behavior, but that is already fully documented in the schema, so no contradiction or major omission exists.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary polling action is front-loaded, followed by the important automatic media-download behavior and return-value statement. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has four optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is fetched, the side effect of downloading media, and what is returned (paths). It could be slightly more explicit about non-media update results, but overall it is complete enough for a low-to-moderate complexity tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the four parameters with clear descriptions, types, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation ('poll and retrieve') with a clear resource scope (recent messages, photos, error screenshots, files, and mediagroups), and it explicitly names the outcome (media downloaded and paths returned). This makes it easily distinguishable from the send_* and ask_* sibling 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?

The description clearly frames the tool as the inbound/polling counterpart to the outbound sibling tools (send_telegram_document, send_telegram_photo, ask_telegram_confirmation, etc.). It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of sending,' but the context is unmistakable and no exclusion scenarios are needed.

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