telegram-read-stories

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

The description adds the constraint 'up to a given story ID (inclusive)' beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (possible side effects), so the description adds marginal value but is not misleading.

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 sentence that is clear, direct, and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no wasted language. It succinctly communicates the action and the scope.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete in explaining what the tool does. However, it lacks context about when to use it (e.g., after viewing stories) and fails to mention any return value or confirmation, which slightly reduces completeness. The high schema coverage compensates for the lack of output schema.

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%—both parameters (chatId, maxId) are already described in the input schema. The tool description only repeats 'maxId' without adding extra meaning or usage context. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve 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 clearly states that the tool marks stories as seen up to a given story ID (maxId). It uses a specific verb ('mark as seen') and resource ('stories'), and the scope ('up to a given story ID') is explicit. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like telegram-mark-as-read (which likely targets messages) and telegram-get-peer-stories (which retrieves stories).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the stories must be viewed first, or that this tool is for marking seen rather than reading. No explicit alternatives are referenced, and the context signals show many sibling tools for stories and reads, but the description offers no differentiation.

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