Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tg_download_urlA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Already-present files are skipped (--skip-same).' It also states it returns absolute paths of newly downloaded files. This is adequate for a download tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It is concise and informative, with no wasted words. The behavioral note about skipping existing files is well integrated.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, when to use, and a behavioral note. It is complete for this straightforward tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states 'Download the media of specific Telegram messages given their t.me links' with an example URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tg_download by specifying it uses direct links rather than scanning a chat.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Use when you already have message links rather than a chat to scan,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient.

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

• tg_downloadA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the tool returns absolute paths of newly downloaded files and skips already-present files (--skip-same). This addresses key behaviors, though it omits permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences: first states the core action and return value, second gives parameter usage hints. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds necessary information without waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, return value, parameter behaviors, and skip-same behavior. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or error scenarios, but it is largely complete for typical use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: provides examples for extensions ('xlsx,pdf'), explains since_id as 'everything new after message X', and clarifies last_n as 'latest N media messages' with default 100. This enriches parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool downloads media files from a single chat to a local directory and returns paths of newly downloaded files. It specifies the resource (media files from one chat) and the action (download), distinguishing it from siblings like tg_download_url (URL downloads) and tg_chats (chat listing).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides usage guidance for parameters (extensions, since_id, last_n) and notes default behavior (last_n default 100) and skip-same behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., tg_download_url for URL downloads, tg_messages for text), limiting differentiation.

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

• tg_messagesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states read-only and mentions the output format and parameter overrides (since_id overrides last_n). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens if no media messages are found.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise, consisting of two functional sentences plus a standalone 'Read-only.' It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and the two primary use cases. It does not define 'media messages' or mention error handling, but it is otherwise complete for a read-only tool with clear parameters.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: explains the difference between last_n and since_id, notes that since_id overrides last_n, and describes the output format compact objects. It also implies the chat parameter can be id or @username, matching the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool exports recent media messages from a single chat, using a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('recent media messages from one chat'). It distinguishes from siblings like tg_chats (which lists chats) and tg_download (which downloads files).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly explains when to use last_n vs since_id (incremental reads). It says 'Read-only' but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like tg_download or tg_status for other operations.

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

• tg_chatsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses output format and that it lists dialogs visible to the logged-in session. No mention of destructive actions, appropriate for a read-only tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and output, second sentence adds usage and parameter detail. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output format, usage, and parameter behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described in schema). Description restates the filter purpose: 'case-insensitive substring match on name/username/id.' Adds minimal value beyond schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states it lists Telegram dialogs visible to the session and specifies output format. Distinguishes from sibling tools like tg_messages and tg_download by clarifying its role in finding chat IDs or usernames for use with those tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly tells when to use: to find chat id or @username for tg_messages/tg_download. Mentions optional filter for matching. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements, but context is sufficient.

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

• tg_statusA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool never errors and returns {logged_in:false, hint} when missing, covering error handling and output format. However, it omits details about side effects or performance, but these are minimal for a status check.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds usage guidance and behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It lacks explanation of what 'hint' contains or what 'usable' means, but these are minor gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter details but doesn't need to.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('local tdl Telegram session'), clearly stating its function to verify login status. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a diagnostic tool to call before other tg_* tools, though not explicitly mentioning what it doesn't do.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly advises calling this tool first if another tg_* tool fails or before starting Telegram work, providing clear context for when to use it. No alternatives are needed given its singular purpose.

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