telegram-get-unread-mentions

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that mentions are marked as read on the server when within the limit. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with the disclosed side effect.

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 two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds important behavioral detail, justifying its inclusion. Minor improvement could be to rephrase 'fits within the requested limit' more concisely.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of mentions or counts). It also lacks details on pagination or behavior when limit exceeds unread mentions, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (chatId, limit). The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score.

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 retrieves unread @mentions addressed to the user in a Telegram chat, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-unread-reactions or get-unread by specifying 'mentions'.

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 usage for fetching mentions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-unread-reactions for reactions, read-messages to mark general reads). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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