telegram-get-unread-mentions

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

The disclosure that reading marks mentions as read only when all unread mentions fit within the requested limit adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations. This explains the side effect (modifying state) and its conditional nature, which annotations only hint at via readOnlyHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers purpose and side effect. Lacks explicit mention of return format but given 'get' in name and simple design, it is mostly complete. Minor gap: what happens when limit is smaller than unread count remains implied.

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 is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond schema: it links the limit parameter to the mark-as-read condition but does not clarify formatting or behavior when limit is insufficient. Adequate but not enhanced.

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 retrieves unread @mentions in a Telegram chat, distinguishing it from siblings like telegram-get-unread and telegram-get-unread-reactions by specifying @mentions addressed to the user. The verb 'get' and resource 'unread @mentions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 for retrieving unread mentions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like telegram-get-unread or telegram-get-unread-reactions. No 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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