list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses scope (configured project), result fields (title + url), and filter behavior (optional substring on title), but it does not mention ordering, limit/pagination behavior, error conditions such as a missing project configuration, or explicitly confirm that listing has no side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and project scope are front-loaded, the output shape is compactly parenthesized, and the filter detail is a separate clear sentence.

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 operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke and interpret results: scope, result fields, and filtering. Minor gaps around limit behavior and ordering keep it from a perfect score.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for 'query' by explaining it as an optional substring filter on title, but 'limit' is left to its self-evident name and schema default rather than being explicitly described.

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') and resource ('conversations inside the configured ChatGPT project'), and specifies the output shape ('title + url') plus optional substring filtering. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like open_chat, new_chat, and send.

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 establishes clear context: this tool enumerates existing conversations within the configured project and supports a title substring filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-only role among the sibling tools makes when-to-use reasonably inferable.

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