list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data comes from a local cache, is sorted by recency, and distinguishes between human-friendly name and internal id. It does not mention potential error states or performance, but is largely transparent about its behavior.

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 sentences, both informative and free of fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance on name vs id. Every word earns its place.

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 the single undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It explains the chat fields but not the effect of excludeGroups, nor does it mention whether results are paginated or limited. With sibling tools that depend on this list, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter (excludeGroups) with default false, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining this parameter's meaning, but it fails to do so.

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 it lists WhatsApp chats from the local cache sorted by most recent activity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_recent_messages) by focusing on chats, not messages or media, and adds clarity by explaining name vs id fields.

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 provides guidance on how to present chat names to users (use name, hide id), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's the first step for chat-related operations, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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