List linked Telegram chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output detail (chat id, type, username, avatar, 2FA flag, selected topic, available topics) and a specific supergroup-forum edge case, without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the resource and then compacts the returned settings into a list. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields, which is sufficient for a parameterless read-only list. It does not mention pagination or the exact shape of topic data, but for this simple tool the context is largely 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the 100% schema coverage meets the baseline; no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information.

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 states a clear action ('Returns') and a specific resource ('all Telegram personal accounts and group chats linked to the Statuser account') along with the settings included. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like max_linked_list.

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 use case is clear: call this when you need to retrieve linked Telegram chats and their settings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter read-only list the context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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