telegram_folders

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: folder ids are the values `chats` and `inbox` accept as `folder`, and folders are the user's own sorting rather than a permission, so chats that the configuration may not enumerate stay hidden. That caveat materially affects how an agent interprets the result.

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 the return shape, then usage, routing, and a caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the final permission sentence is a long clause that could be trimmed slightly.

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, and the description compensates by describing the returned structure (id, name, emoji, rules) and what the rules distinguish. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both the `account` and `include_private` semantics (including the safety.read.enumerate_dms requirement) are already documented in the schema. The description adds cross-tool context for the returned ids but no additional meaning for either parameter, so the 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 ('Returns each folder's id, name, emoji and rules') and enumerates what the rules cover. It explicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_plan_folder_add and telegram_chats as alternatives, so an agent can pick it correctly without opening any 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 a concrete when-to-use trigger ('user asks how their chat folders are set up or which folder id to filter by') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the named replacement tools for both the write path and the per-folder listing path. 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.