list_allowed_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: results are 'cached' with an 'observation time/stale flag', which tells the agent the data may be outdated. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the freshness disclosure is real added value.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose (list allowed IDs and cached names) is front-loaded. The second sentence is a dense scope-limitation clause, which is slightly harder to parse but still 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (numeric IDs, native names, observation time, stale flag), and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. The absence of any link to sibling tools like resolve_chat or search_messages is the main remaining gap.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents what the parameterless call returns, which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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 (allowed chats) and specifies what is returned: numeric IDs, cached native Telegram names, observation time, and a stale flag. It does not name or contrast itself against any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from context.

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 second sentence gives negative scope ('No browser/profile access, custom aliases or unrelated chat discovery'), which helps delimit when this tool is appropriate. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no positive trigger condition beyond 'list allowed chats', so usage is only implied.

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