telegram_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: private DMs are silently excluded unless safety.read.enumerate_dms permits them, and the result includes unread counts. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the limit parameter is already documented in the schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage, then the exclusion rule. Every sentence carries routing or constraint information; there is no restatement of the name or 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 correctly summarizes what comes back (dialogs with unread counts and the chat_id), states the permission-gated exclusion, and delegates detail to the fully documented schema. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 six parameters are already described in the schema (folder narrowing, search substring, archived toggle, include_private gate). The description's only parameter-adjacent content is the private-conversation exclusion, which mirrors include_private rather than adding syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource — returning the account's dialogs with unread counts — and gives the concrete downstream purpose (turning a title into the chat_id other operations need). It explicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_chat_read and telegram_search, so an agent can route 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('chat list, unread counts, or a chat id from a title'), explicit when-not-to-use ('Do not use this to read messages'), and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects each. It also states the safety prerequisite for private conversations.

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