@git-fabric/chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting behavior ('sorted by most recently updated first') and filtering capabilities, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (no output schema), leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-rich 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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds filtering and sorting details. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place efficiently.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose, filtering, and sorting, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a list tool with no output schema, more context on what 'list' returns would be beneficial, though the current description meets minimum viability.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by project, state, and limit, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., default values or enum details are already covered). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent chat sessions'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like chat_session_get (retrieve specific session) and chat_session_create/archive/delete (mutations), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from chat_search (which might also list sessions), preventing a perfect score.

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 implies usage for listing sessions with filtering options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_search or chat_session_get. It mentions filtering parameters, which suggests context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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