list_user_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool only returns groups, excludes P2P chats, and requires OAuth setup. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent insight into limitations and auth needs. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or return format, which are relevant but not critical for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: scope, limitation, alternative, and prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it lists, its limitation, an alternative path, and a prerequisite. Slightly missing is what the returned data looks like (e.g., chat metadata vs. messages), but the name and context make this reasonable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with both 'page_size' and 'page_token' having descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the score matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 group chats the user is in.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from P2P chats, which sets it apart from sibling tools like 'list_chats' and 'read_messages'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('List group chats the user is in'), what it does NOT do ('only returns groups, not P2P'), and a clear alternative workflow for P2P chats ('use search_contacts → create_p2p_chat → read_p2p_messages'). It also notes prerequisite 'Requires OAuth setup.' This is exemplary guidance.

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