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 does disclose one important trait — results come from the local session cache, implying possible staleness or incompleteness — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what happens when the cache is empty.

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?

One short sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the usage and parameter context an agent needs.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify return shape, ordering, and pagination semantics. It covers only the data source, leaving the agent under-informed about what a call actually yields.

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 single parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage, exposing only type and min/max. The description adds no information about what limit controls, its default, or whether truncation is signalled.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List chats") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ("visible in this local session cache") that implies a cached-snapshot view rather than a server fetch. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fetch_all_chats, leaving the agent to infer which one talks to the network.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fetch_all_chats, search_messages, or fetch_message_history. The word "visible" hints at a scoping condition, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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