list_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the return fields ('Returns chat_id, name, type') but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it). The absence of any side-effect disclosure is acceptable for a read operation, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return format adequately. It lacks usage alternatives and explicit read-only behavior, but the low complexity and good schema coverage make it nearly complete. Slightly below get_calls because it omits alternative tool guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, with page_size and page_token described directly in the input schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter explanations, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not clarify how pagination works or how page_token is obtained, but the schema already provides defaults and limits.

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's function: 'List all chats the bot has joined.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_chats or get_chat_info, which have different scopes (user chats vs. bot's chats).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this lists only chats the bot is a member of (though that's in the purpose) or that other tools might be more appropriate for filtering or searching. The agent is left to infer usage context from the sibling list.

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