list_dialogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the filtering behavior and clarifies that 'group' includes supergroups, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or any other side effects, though the verb 'List' suggests a read-only operation.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence. It states the primary action first and then adds the only parameter semantics that matter, with no redundant or filler language.

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 is simple: one optional parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present. The description covers the tool's purpose and the parameter's valid values, which is sufficient context for correct invocation. Return values are already documented by the output schema, so the description does not need to explain them.

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 only provides a string 'chat_type' with a default, leaving 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by enumerating the allowed values: all, channel, group (including supergroups), or user. This gives the agent the exact vocabulary needed to set the parameter correctly.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('Telegram dialogs'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_info or get_messages, but the resource and filter scope are specific enough that the tool is identifiable.

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: call this when you need to list Telegram dialogs, optionally filtered by chat type. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as get_messages for message-level retrieval, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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