List Telegram recipients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Chat IDs are never returned.' This is important for privacy and security. It also implies the output contains recipient names and tags, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance and a key constraint. Every sentence is informative and earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, usage guidance, and a critical behavioral detail (no chat IDs). It is fully complete for an agent to understand and select the 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 has zero parameters, so the description provides all meaningful semantics. It explains what the tool returns (names and tags) and explicitly states what it does not return (chat IDs). This adds complete value beyond the empty schema.

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 lists who can be messaged (owner and configured recipients) with names and tags. It uses the verb 'List' and the resource 'Telegram recipients', and distinguishes from the sibling tool send_telegram_message by explaining its purpose for mapping phrases to valid 'to' values.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to map a phrase like 'my partner' to a valid 'to' value for send_telegram_message. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not include explicit when-not scenarios, which is acceptable given its straightforward purpose.

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