telegram-get-channel-updates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as what happens on large gaps (returns a dialog snapshot) and the stateless nature of the cursor. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the main action, then explains cursor distinction, gap handling, and statelessness. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'per-channel' repeated), but it remains efficient. A 5 would require even tighter wording, but it's well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return values: 'compact newMessages[], otherUpdates[], and new {pts, isFinal, timeout?}'. It also covers edge cases (large gap), and since schema coverage is 100%, all parameter meanings are clear. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it confirms 'chatId' is channel/supergroup ID or username, 'pts' is per-channel, 'limit' has default 100, 'force' is rarely needed. Overall, the schema already explains parameters well, so description adds marginal value.

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 'Fetch new messages and updates for a single channel/supergroup since a known per-channel pts cursor.' It uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), specifies the resource ('new messages and updates'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'telegram-get-updates' which uses a global cursor.

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 contrasts this tool with 'telegram-get-updates' (global cursor vs. per-channel). It also instructs on handling large gaps: 'hints to resync via telegram-read-messages.' Additionally, it notes the stateless cursor and that the agent stores pts, providing clear usage guidelines.

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