telegram-list-chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that results include unread counts, type indicators, and contact status, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, rate limits, or other traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description usefully hints at output contents (unread counts, type indicators, contact status). It covers the core purpose but does not mention pagination or filtering behavior, which is partially inferred from parameters. Annotations compensate for safety context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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'), the resource ('Telegram chats'), and the included details ('unread counts, type indicators, and contact status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-chat-info' (specific chat) and 'search-chats' (search-based) by indicating a broad listing with metadata.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'telegram-search-chats' or 'telegram-get-chat-info'. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites. The parameters imply filtering but are not described in usage context.

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