list_synthesis_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the return fields (chat IDs, titles, associated study IDs) and the scope (all studies). It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'List' strongly implies it. No pagination or filtering details are mentioned, but the description is otherwise clear.

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 sentences: the first fronts the core purpose, the second adds return details and usage context. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 list tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers scope, return values, and use cases. The presence of an output schema means detailed return structure is not needed in the description.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no parameter information to add beyond the schema. The description doesn't need to explain parameters.

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 lists all Synthesis Studio AI chats across all studies, with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_synthesis_chat (single chat), create_synthesis_chat, and delete_synthesis_chat.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: to find existing chats to resume with get_synthesis_chat, or to show the user analysis history before creating a new chat. This provides clear context and names the relevant alternative tools.

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