list_chats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful operational facts — default limit 50 with a 200 cap, default page 0 pagination, and default sorting by last_active — but says nothing about read-only nature explicitly, permissions/auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation 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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a compact, scannable per-parameter list. The 'Args:' scaffold is boilerplate but every line carries information, so there is minimal waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and parameters are fully covered. What remains missing is sibling routing and any permission or safety context for a tool with no annotations — enough gaps to keep it at minimum-viable-plus rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all five parameters are documented with defaults, the limit ceiling, and the two valid sort_by values (which the schema does not enumerate via enum). It is missing only the type/nullability nuance for query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get WhatsApp chats) and hints at filtering criteria. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like get_chat, get_contact_chats, or list_messages, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as get_contact_chats (chats for a specific contact) and get_chat (a single chat) present, the description should say which one to pick when scoping to one contact or one chat.

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