bort_chat_list

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only the shape of returned data (participants, project links). It says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or ordering for a list endpoint.

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?

A single compact clause pair with the filter behavior front-loaded after the returned-data summary. Nothing is wasted, though the semicolon construction packs two distinct ideas densely.

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 three-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only one parameter and the rough return shape. An agent must guess at q and project_name semantics and at pagination or result size.

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% across three parameters, and the description only explains project_id's filtering effect. The semantics of q (search query?) and project_name (filter vs lookup?) are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the resource (chats) and what it returns (participants and project bindings), and the leading token of the name makes the list operation clear. It distinguishes scope via the project_id behavior, though it never uses an explicit verb.

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?

It gives one conditional usage rule: passing project_id narrows results to that project's chats. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as bort_project_summary or bort_chat_attach, and no mention of how q or project_name interact with that filter.

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