telegram_chat_topics

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: a non-forum chat is refused with a stated reason rather than an empty list (important false-negative avoidance), plus the per-topic fields returned and how the cursor fields feed the next page. It stops short of permissions/account requirements or rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with why the tool exists, then use/do-not-use, then return shape and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, title, icon, unread/mention counts, closed/hidden, created, permalink). Combined with the refusal behavior and cursor semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 chat, limit, search, account and all three offset cursors are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the topic-id/per-topic semantics but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the structured fields provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: list the topics (threads) of a forum supergroup, and explains the domain concept it operates on. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that reads inside a topic, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives both when-to-use ('user asks for the topic list of a forum, or which topic id to read') and when-not ('do not use this to read the messages inside a topic'), and names the alternative call (telegram_chat_read with that topic id). Routing is fully specified.

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