telegram-get-unread-mentions

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

The description discloses that mentions are marked as read on the server when all unread mentions fit within the requested limit. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false) and provides users with important behavioral context. However, it could further clarify what happens if the limit is exceeded.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with a crucial behavioral note. Every sentence 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 description lacks details about the return value (e.g., format, fields of each mention) and edge cases (e.g., what happens if unread mentions exceed the limit). Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the tool, more completeness is needed.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that the limit parameter controls both the number of mentions returned and the server-side read marking behavior, which is beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving unread @mentions in a Telegram chat. It also specifies a side effect (marking as read) and distinguishes itself from siblings like telegram-get-unread and telegram-get-unread-reactions.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need unread mentions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like telegram-get-unread. There is no guidance on prerequisites or order of operations.

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