List Relay Chats

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small but useful behavioral detail: results are limited to chats visible to the authenticated Relay Agent. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or response characteristics beyond that.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informational richness for brevity.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of pagination, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to use limit and cursor effectively. The basic no-argument invocation is clear, but advanced or correct paginated usage is not supported. Annotations help with safety but do not fill the informational gap.

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 explain the 'limit' or 'cursor' parameters. The property names and constraints imply pagination, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since the description does not compensate for the low coverage, this is a notable 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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Chats') with a useful scope qualifier ('visible to the authenticated Relay Agent'). It clearly identifies this as a list operation, distinguishing it from relay_get_chat and relay_list_messages at a basic level. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the resource and operation are unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as relay_get_chat or relay_list_messages. The description only says what it does, not when it should be preferred. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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