telegram_messages_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add two valuable traits — 'Read only' and deterministic ordering — which an agent cannot get from structured data. However, for an 8-parameter paginated read it says nothing about pagination behavior, default window sizes, or how before/after/offset interact with each mode.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Slight cost is that the two modes are compressed into one clause rather than enumerated, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Eight parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a one-sentence description leave an agent guessing about parameter interplay and return shape. For a tool this configurable, the description is well short of sufficient.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that 'context' needs a specific message and 'history' is recent-first, but never explains chat_id, message_id, from_message_id, before, after, offset, or limit — several of which are unobvious with no documentation at all.

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 ('Fetches recent message history or context around a specific message in a chat') and names the two modes, which distinguishes it from telegram_messages_search. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The phrase 'recent message history or context around a specific message' implies the two supported scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to telegram_messages_search or telegram_inbox as alternatives. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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