List my chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds context about listing 'recent' chats and the return format, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description is consistent and adds minor transparency.

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 very concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and parameters/returns. It is front-loaded with the core function, followed by a usage hint, then structured argument details. Every sentence is essential and well-organized.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides the return structure (JSON with count and chats fields). It covers input parameters well. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any limits beyond the explicit 'limit' parameter, which could be needed for a complete understanding. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter details (limit with range, response_format with enum) and adds context like default values and return structure, which adds some value but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. No examples or advanced usage are provided.

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 'List the user's recent 1:1 and group chats' and explicitly excludes channel conversations, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like teams_list_channels. The verb 'List' and resource 'chats' are specific.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to find the chat_id for reading or sending chat messages.' It also implicitly advises when not to use it by stating 'not channel conversations'. While it could explicitly mention alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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