List Chats

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

The annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) with open-world data (openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is the margin. It adds useful output semantics — Telegram's native ordering and the unread/last-message preview payload — but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering ties, or how far the list extends. Useful context, not rich context.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the ordering behavior is front-loaded. It is compact, though its brevity is part of why the parameters go unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. What remains missing is meaningful coverage of the four filtering/paging parameters (kind, limit, unread_only), which for a list tool governs correctness of invocation.

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 description coverage is only 25% — just the 'archived' parameter is documented in the schema. The description never mentions the 'kind' filter, the 'limit' bound, or the 'unread_only' flag, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though the mention of 'unread counts' brushes against unread_only without defining it.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with the resource ('chats') and adds the ordering rule ('in the order Telegram shows them (most recent first)') plus the returned fields (unread counts, last-message preview). It is easy to distinguish from get_messages or get_chat_info. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/overview entry point, but nothing states when to prefer it over get_unread (unread filtering) or search_messages. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternatives.

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