list_allowed_chats

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

The description discloses that the data is 'cached' and filtered by an 'AI access policy', which adds context beyond a simple 'list chats'. However, since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden for safety and side-effect disclosure. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the verb 'List' implies it. No rate limits, auth, or staleness details are mentioned.

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, concise sentence: 'List cached chats allowed by AI access policy.' It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or redundant words. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It tells what the tool returns conceptually (a list of chats) but omits details such as the output format, potential staleness of cache, or whether it requires any special context. The missing usage guidelines also impact overall completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List cached chats allowed by AI access policy.' The verb 'List' plus the specific resource 'cached chats' and the qualifier 'allowed by AI access policy' make the function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_scopes and search_messages.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions, alternative tools, or specific scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name and siblings, but no explicit direction is provided.

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