st.character.chats

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain what the returned chat files look like, whether simple or metadata parameters alter results, or whether any pagination/ordering applies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundant information. It states the essential action and scope efficiently.

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 listing tool the description covers the basic purpose, but it is not complete enough given the total absence of parameter descriptions, annotations, and output schema. The agent is left to guess the meaning of optional parameters and the return format.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the three parameters. The 'avatar' parameter is only implicit in 'for one character avatar', while 'simple' and 'metadata' are entirely unexplained, leaving agents without enough information to use them correctly.

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 files'), and a clear scope ('for one character avatar'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.character.list (listing avatars) and st.chat.inspect (inspecting a specific chat).

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and terse description.

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