im_list_chats

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'get list' without revealing any behavioral details such as whether it is a read-only operation, how pagination works, sorting semantics, or any side effects. The description adds no information beyond the obvious purpose.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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?

The tool is simple, with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description tells what the tool does but does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or default sorting. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps in context.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters (page_size, sort_type, page_token), each with a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description is acceptable because the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 function: retrieving the list of groups (chats) that the user or bot belongs to. The verb '获取' (get) and the resource '群列表' (group list) are specific, and the scope ('用户或机器人所在') is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like im_send_message or im_list_messages, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or situations where another tool (e.g., im_get_chat_members) would be more appropriate. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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