telegram_sub_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or the behavior when allow_all is false or omitted.

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 concise, with exactly two sentences and no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core function and a key parameter behavior.

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?

The description covers the primary action but omits details such as the return format, whether the operation is read-only, and the exact meaning of the default allow_all behavior. Given the simple listing nature, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already describes the 'principal' parameter well ('Target principal/user (default: current)'), and the description adds no further meaning to it. However, the description introduces an 'allow_all' parameter not present in the schema, which could confuse agents about valid inputs.

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 the tool's purpose: listing a principal's Telegram chat subscriptions. The verb 'List' and resource 'Telegram chat subscriptions' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_sub_remove.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of allow_all=true gives a hint about filtering but does not explain when to set it or when to prefer this over other subscription-related tools.

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