im_chat_find

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 chats are filtered by current user availability, but does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any other side effects. The description is too sparse to convey meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic scope.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple search tool with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not mention return format (since no output schema exists). The presence of sibling tools like im_chat_list creates potential confusion that the description does not resolve.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, offset). The description only adds that searching is by name, which is already implied by the 'query' parameter description ('Строка поиска'). It does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool finds chats available to the current user by name/title, using a specific verb (find) and resource (chats). It implies search functionality, distinguishing it from listing tools like im_chat_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as im_chat_list. The only context is the implied use case of searching by name, which is embedded in the purpose rather than as a distinct usage guideline.

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