list_excluded_chats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format (array of chatId and name), clarifies name is best-effort and null without live session, and mentions local operation. Does not mention side effects, idempotency, or permissions, but as a read-only list tool these are less critical. Score 3 as adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then important details. No wasted words. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Comprehensive for a simple list tool: explains return format, edge cases (null name), operation context (local-index, works offline). No output schema but description covers return shape. All necessary context provided.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage 100% (trivial). Baseline 4 for zero-param tools. Description adds no param info but none needed.

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?

Clearly specifies the tool lists conversations on the privacy denylist. Differentiates from siblings like list_conversations (which lists all) and exclude_chats/include_chats (which modify the denylist). Uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'conversations... privacy denylist'.

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?

States it works without a live LINE session and is a local-index operation, implying when to use (offline-capable) and contrasting with tools that require live session. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative naming, but context is clear.

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