telegram-list-emoji-statuses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may change). The description adds context about the data being emoji statuses and the relationship to another tool. No contradictions, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of the operation's nature.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key use case. It does not elaborate on all enum variants (e.g., channel_default, collectible), but the schema does. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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% with both parameters well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, only general purpose. According to the rule, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already covers parameters fully.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'emoji statuses', and the scope 'default or recently-used available for your account'. It also provides a specific use case: finding a documentId for telegram-set-emoji-status, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like telegram-get-recent-stickers.

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 connects this tool to another tool (telegram-set-emoji-status), guiding when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and the parameter 'kind' offers more options than just 'default' and 'recent', which could be clarified.

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