telegram_archive_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-trivial behavior: the read-policy filtering, that withheld chats are still counted, and that removal happens only via archive forget. It does not describe pagination or output size, but for a read-only status tool this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loads the row shape, then use/when-not guidance in three tight sentences. No filler, though the read-policy sentence is slightly dense and could be split.

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?

No output schema, but the description enumerates the row fields and covers filtering behavior, so an agent knows what comes back and the policy caveat. Missing only tangential details like ordering or pagination.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one optional account parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (archived chats) and enumerates the exact per-row fields (message count, id watermarks, backfill completeness, last sync time). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like telegram_archive_search or telegram_chats.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it (user asks what the archive holds, message counts, last sync) and when not to (searching text), routing to telegram_archive_search and telegram_archive_forget by name. This is model routing guidance, not inference.

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