Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations - it mentions 'multiple messages at once' and the batch operation nature, but doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens to forwarded messages (e.g., whether they retain original metadata).

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality.

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 that this is a mutation tool (forwarding messages) with no schema description coverage but good property descriptions in the schema itself, plus the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it should ideally mention the 100-message limit (from maxItems in schema) and provide more behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter explanation but provides none. It doesn't mention any of the three required parameters (from_chat_id, to_chat_id, message_ids) or their semantics. The baseline is 3 because the schema itself has good property descriptions (in Korean) that explain each parameter's purpose.

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 action ('forward multiple messages at once') and resources ('from one chat to another chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'telegram_forward_message' (singular vs. plural), which would be helpful for agent selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'telegram_forward_message' (for single messages) or 'telegram_copy_messages' (which might preserve original authorship), nor any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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