List chats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result is a list of recent chats with unread counts and a last-message preview, which implies a read-only overview operation. However, it does not clarify ordering, pagination behavior, whether archived chats are excluded by default beyond the schema default, or any other side-effect-free guarantees.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies what the tool lists and what the returned data includes. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description as the only source for return-shape and behavior details. It gives a high-level preview of return contents but not the full structure, sort order, or default exclusion semantics. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 documentation covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning unread counts and message previews, which loosely relates to unread_only and the returned fields. It does not enrich or contradict the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 uses a clear verb and resource pair ('Recent WhatsApp chats') and names what the tool returns (unread counts and last message preview). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_messages or list_communities even though no sibling is explicitly named. It loses a point because it does not actively contrast itself with related tools.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_messages, search_messages, or search_contacts. The description implies a top-level overview use case, but it never states exclusions or conditions. The 5 filter parameters suggest flexibility, but no scenario guidance is given.

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