Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, suggesting a non-destructive write operation. The description adds context by specifying the type of action (status indicators like 'typing'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the chat is invalid. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 in Korean that front-loads the core purpose ('채팅에 상태 표시를 전송합니다') and provides illustrative examples. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), annotations covering safety, and low parameter complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances like error handling, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with parameters 'chat_id' and 'action' only having basic titles/descriptions in Korean. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics—it doesn't explain what 'chat_id' refers to (e.g., numeric ID) or detail 'action' values beyond the examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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: '채팅에 상태 표시를 전송합니다' (send status indicators to a chat). It specifies the action ('전송합니다' - send) and the resource ('채팅' - chat), with examples like '입력 중...' (typing) and '파일 업로드 중...' (uploading file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telegram_send_message', which might be used for similar chat interactions.

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. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., chat access), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'telegram_send_message' for actual message sending. Usage is implied through examples but not explicitly stated.

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