List recent Telegram voice messages

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing ordering, restricting the result to voice/video notes, scoping to a known cloud chat, and explicitly stating that no speech recognition is started. No contradictions with annotations.

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 the core purpose, and no filler. The pagination sentence is useful but uses 'next_before_message_id' rather than the schema's 'before_message_id', which slightly reduces precision.

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 list tool with output schema and read-only annotations, it covers scope, ordering, media types, and pagination. The main gap is the cursor name ambiguity: an agent may look for 'next_before_message_id' as an input field because the schema only exposes 'before_message_id'. This is a small but real obstacle to correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'one known cloud chat' clarifies chat_id and 'Use next_before_message_id for older pages' indicates pagination behavior. However, it never names the input parameter before_message_id, leaving the exact mapping of the cursor to the schema ambiguous, and limit is left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: lists voice notes and video notes in a single known cloud chat, ordered newest first. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like telegram_get_chat_history (all messages) and telegram_transcribe_voice (audio transcription).

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 gives clear operating context: one known chat, voice/video notes only, newest-first ordering, and a pagination instruction for older pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'No speech recognition' line and media-type focus make the intended use apparent.

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