ibot_get_chat_link

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the internal API path and <1s latency, a Playwright fallback on failure, coverage of both active and archived chats, automatic multi-format number matching, the auth prerequisite, and the absence of side effects. That is unusually rich disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then packs latency, fallback, scope, output, and auth into short clauses with no filler. It is dense with clauses, but each one carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return values (chat_id and link), auth requirements, latency, fallback path, and search scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so device, archived, and chat_number are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those (device default IBOT_DEVICE, archived fallback, multiple formats) rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches an existing I-Bot contact by phone number and returns chat_id plus a direct link, explicitly noting it does NOT send a message. This makes the operation unmistakable, though it never names a sibling (e.g. ibot_batch_get_chat_links or ibot_list_chats) to differentiate scope.

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?

Gives clear operating context: requires the panel session (run `ibot-mcp login` first) and advises filtering by device when an account has several, in case the same number exists elsewhere. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the batch sibling or list_chats.

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