Telegram MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'get entities which have unread messages in it', implying a read-only operation that filters entities based on unread status. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of entities, pagination), error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'get entities which have unread messages in it'. It's concise but under-specified, lacking necessary details like entity type or behavioral context. While it's front-loaded with the core purpose, it fails to earn its place by not adding enough value beyond the tool name, making it more of a tautology than a helpful description.

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 complexity (a filtering operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entities' are, what 'unread messages' means, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that likely returns a list of entities, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively, especially with sibling tools that might overlap in functionality.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema and the lack of parameters is clear from the context.

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 'get entities which have unread messages in it' restates the tool name 'get_unread_entities' in slightly different words, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what type of entities (e.g., users, channels, conversations) or what 'unread messages' means in this context. While it implies a read operation, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_entities' or 'get_unread_messages'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication or context needed, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_unread_messages' (which might return messages directly) or 'get_entities' (which might return all entities regardless of read status). The description implies a filtering condition ('unread messages'), but doesn't clarify the use case.

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