telegram_fleet

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the operation is 'Local only unless `probe` is set', i.e. it stays off the network by default and only touches remote sessions when explicitly requested. It does not discuss rate limiting or cost of probing many accounts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to use it, when not to and what to use instead, plus a scoping caveat. Front-loaded with the capability and free of 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields and the network/local distinction. It is slightly silent on how the optional `include_excluded` flag changes the result set (only the schema covers that), leaving a small gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 the schema already defines all three parameters; baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning on top by clarifying that `probe` changes the operation from local-only to an active connection to every account, a semantic the schema's own wording does not emphasize as strongly.

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 (Reports) and resource (every registered account) and enumerates the three facts returned: sign-in state, lock state, and safety-permission status. It also names the sibling tools it is not (telegram_sessions, telegram_chats), so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives explicit positive triggers ('Use when the user asks which Telegram accounts are configured, signed in, or locked') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Do not use this to list devices on one account; call telegram_sessions'). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative routing.

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