chat_info

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

There are no annotations and no output schema visible in the prompt, so the description is the primary behavior signal. It says 'Details', which implies a read-only operation and no side effects. It does not state this explicitly nor mention any other behavioral considerations, but the tool name and wording strongly suggest a safe, non-mutating query. This is adequate but not richly disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Details for one chat') and then efficiently lists the retrieved fields. No fluff, no redundant split, and every phrase adds value.

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 tool that accepts only chat_id and returns a fixed detail object, the description lists what the return will contain and is clear about the operation. The main gap is that it doesn't link the input chat_id to a source, but given the tool's simplicity and apparent read-only nature, most needed context is present.

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 description never mentions chat_id or how the chat is identified, leaving the only parameter entirely undocumented in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but doesn't. The parameter is self-explanatory (chat identifier), but a real explanation that it must be the identifier of a chat from list_chats would help. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Details for') and resource ('one chat'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (type, title, forum flag, message count, date range). This strongly contrasts with siblings like list_chats (which presumably lists multiple chats) and get_messages (which retrieves messages), making the agent able to distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 provides clear context: you use this tool when you need the details for a single chat. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the phrase 'for one chat' is enough for an agent to infer when to select it over list_chats or other siblings.

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