telegram_inbox

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding context beyond them: the ranking order (mentions, then unread reactions on own messages, then volume) and the explicit side-effect statement 'Reading the inbox never marks anything as seen.' It does not detail pagination or return shape, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely useful for a read tool.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, ranking behavior, alternatives, and a caveat — a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and long, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 supplies the return shape ('one row per chat, not raw history') and the ranking logic, and annotations cover safety. For a 6-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to select and call 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 every parameter (limit, folder, account, include_muted, mentions_only, include_private) is already documented in the schema, and the description adds little parameter-specific guidance beyond it. The baseline of 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('ranked summary of conversations with unread messages, mentions or reactions') and a key scoping constraint ('one row per chat, not raw history'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming telegram_chat_read and telegram_mentions as the tools for other jobs.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('what is waiting, what they missed, or which chats need a reply') and when-not ('Do not use this to read one chat's history'). It routes to the correct alternatives for specific question shapes: telegram_chat_read for history, telegram_mentions for who mentioned them.

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