get_chat_rooms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only action ('List') and the auth scope ('authenticated user's'), but it does not mention pagination, the response shape, ordering, or any other behavioral details. The page parameter suggests pagination, yet the description omits it.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and act on.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description's core task is to identify what is returned and any relevant behavior. It says what is listed, but it omits pagination behavior and any mention of the return format. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more contextual detail would make it 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% for the only parameter, page, and the description does not mention pagination or explain the page parameter's meaning. The schema's type, default, and minimum offer some intrinsic hints, but the description itself adds no parameter-level context. This is a clear gap given the low 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('chat rooms'), and a scope qualifier ('authenticated user's'), with a parenthetical disambiguation ('in-app messaging'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_chat_unread, so an agent can infer the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool—when the authenticated user's chat rooms are needed—but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. The presence of get_chat_unread as a sibling suggests some potential for confusion, but the description's clarity mitigates this. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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