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, confirming this is a write operation that doesn't destroy data. The description adds context about what gets created (a poll) and mentions error handling in the returns statement. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for parameter details. While efficient, the Korean-only text might limit accessibility for some agents, and the returns statement could be more specific about success/error formats.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters with constraints) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is reasonably complete. It documents all parameters thoroughly and indicates the return type. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context about Telegram-specific requirements or limitations.

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 (parameters documented only in the description), the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It provides comprehensive details for all 5 parameters including data types, constraints (max 300 characters, 2-10 options), and default values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: '텔레그램 채팅에 투표를 생성합니다' (creates a poll in a Telegram chat). It specifies the verb ('생성합니다' - creates) and resource ('투표' - poll), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message or send_photo. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other messaging tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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. With many sibling tools for sending different content types (message, photo, video, etc.), there's no indication of when a poll is appropriate versus other communication methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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