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 behavioral burden. It adds some useful status semantics (goal status for codex chats, busy/idle/closed for claude chats), but omits pagination/limit behavior, required 'app'/'project' prerequisites, and permission or error 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful status note. No filler language, though the status sentence is somewhat cryptic without examples.

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 need not be explained. Still, with 3 params at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete regarding parameter meanings and listing behavior (limit, app selection).

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% and the description does not explain the 'app', 'project', or 'limit' parameters. The only hint is that 'project' is a name or path from list_projects; 'app' and 'limit' are entirely undocumented, and limit doesn't even appear in the description.

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+resource ('List chats in a project') and adds the ordering ('newest first'). However, it does not differentiate from the listed sibling 'list_projects' (though that sibling lists a different resource) beyond noting that the project argument is a name/path from list_projects.

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?

It mentions that the project argument can come from list_projects, which implies a chaining context, but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternatives for retrieving chats (e.g., read_chat).

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