Read a native Telegram draft

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

The description adds 'Read-only; never clears or changes the user's draft' and 'Non-text drafts are reported by content_type', which are genuine behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. It is clear about side effects and content-type behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then a side-effect guarantee. No filler or repeated schema data.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, it covers the key behaviors. The only real gap is the lack of parameter elaboration, which is partially mitigated by obvious names.

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 0% and the description does not discuss chat_id or topic_id at all. The parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions or clarify optional topic behavior.

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 first sentence identifies a specific operation ('Read'), the resource ('the draft visible in Telegram'), and an additional output ('its version'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling read tools like telegram_get_message or telegram_get_chat_history. The title also aligns.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it ('before preparing a replacement') and explicitly notes text-only/non-text handling, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling names make the draft-specific scope inferable, so no exclusions are stated.

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