telegram_chats_list

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does explicitly disclose "Read only" plus the bounded-pagination and normalized-summary traits. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, ordering guarantees, or what a "normalized summary" actually contains — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The only weak spot is that the compact phrase "normalized summaries" carries a lot of unexplained meaning for four words.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation mean the description is the sole source of behavioral detail, and it is two sentences long. An agent would not know what a returned chat summary looks like, how pagination terminates, or how archive scoping behaves, which is insufficient for a tool in a 10-sibling namespace.

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 0% across 3 parameters. "Bounded pagination" loosely hints that `limit` and `cursor` exist and are capped, but the description never mentions the `chat_list` enum values (main vs archive), the 1–100 limit range, or default behavior when no cursor is supplied. The enum and min/max in the schema are self-evident, but the semantics of cursor format and scope are unexplained in both places.

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 ("Lists recent chats") with scope modifiers ("recent", "bounded pagination", "normalized summaries"), so an agent can tell it apart from message-oriented siblings like telegram_messages_get or telegram_messages_search. It does not explicitly contrast with telegram_inbox or telegram_contacts, which are the closest ambiguities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description never says why an agent would pick this over telegram_inbox or telegram_contacts, both of which plausibly return chat-like data. Only the phrase "recent chats" implies the context.

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