get_history_with_links

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining the output structure (compact text blocks + ResourceLink) and the lazy-loading pattern with the telegram://msg/{chat_id}/{message_id} resource.

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 and front-loaded: 'Гибрид: компактные text-блоки + ResourceLink на каждое сообщение' immediately conveys the core idea. The follow-up sentence adds practical client behavior without waste.

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 relative simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the key output format and the resource-loading mechanism, though it could add a brief note on parameter meaning.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'chat' or 'limit' parameters. It mentions chat_id in the resource link but doesn't clarify whether 'chat' accepts an ID, username, etc., or how 'limit' affects results. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the low coverage is not compensated.

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 indicates a hybrid message history output: compact text blocks plus a ResourceLink per message so the client can load the full message. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_history by emphasizing the resource-link mechanism, though it doesn't use an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieves'.

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 implies a use case: get a cheap, compact list of messages and lazy-load full messages via telegram:// resource links. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over get_history or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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