Get Updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: polling mechanism (marker for incremental updates, timeout for instant/long polling), event types list, and a crucial warning that this is for development only and not for production. No contradictions.

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?

Description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary detail without unnecessary verbosity, though the event types list could be more compact by referencing the schema.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters (all optional with enums/constraints), the description fully covers what the tool returns (events with types) and how to use it effectively (marker, timeout, production warning). No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds some context (e.g., timeout=0 vs >0 behavior, marker pagination) but largely repeats schema descriptions. The event types list in description is slightly incomplete (missing 'chat_title_changed'), so not fully additive.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets incoming events (new messages, button clicks, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself as the only way to get chat_id for personal dialogs. The verb 'get' and resource 'updates' are clear, and it differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., send_message, get_message) by specifying polling behavior.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool (for polling) and when not to (production should use webhooks). It provides detailed guidance on marker usage for pagination and timeout behavior (instant vs long polling), giving clear context for alternatives.

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