telegram_chat_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety burden is light. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing return content ('with their roles') and clarifying it handles both groups and channels, though it omits pagination/limit behavior (schema caps limit at 500).

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the exclusion routing follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 exists, but the description states the shape of the result (members with roles) and annotations cover the safety profile for this read-only tool. A minor gap is that pagination/limit semantics are not addressed in prose.

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 100%, so all five parameters (chat, limit, search, account, admins_only) are already documented. The description's mention of 'which members are admins' loosely maps to admins_only but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 verb and resource ('List the members of a group or channel, with their roles') and immediately names the sibling tools it is not (telegram_whois, telegram_chat_read). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('who is in a group or channel, or which members are admins') and explicit when-not-to-use routing to two named alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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