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 usefully discloses that query matches title or @username and lists the returned fields, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, how the limit is applied, or whether the operation is read-only. This is acceptable but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It leads with the action, then covers the two key filtering parameters, and ends with the return shape—every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, filters, and output fields, and an output schema exists, so the return values need not be fully spelled out. However, it lacks guidance on limit semantics, pagination, ordering, and how this relates to backfilled chats, which leaves meaningful gaps for safely invoking the tool at scale.

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 meaning to query and type by describing matching behavior and enumerating allowed values, but it gives no semantic explanation for the limit parameter beyond what the schema already implies by its default value. Partial compensation earns a 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List Telegram chats known to the service') and clearly states filtering behavior and return fields, making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as chat_info or search_messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage by explaining query and type filters, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or routing to siblings like chat_info or search_messages, so usage context is only partially conveyed.

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