List allowlisted chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: entries may carry resolution errors, implying partial/failed lookups rather than a clean list. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how entries enter the allowlist.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the payload. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is a valuable addition that partially compensates. However, the description never explains what the allowlist is, how it relates to discover_chats, or what a resolution error means for the caller — gaps that matter for a zero-param tool whose result shape is otherwise undocumented.

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 there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and unscoped.

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?

"List every chat in the allowlist" is a specific verb plus resource, and the trailing clause names the returned fields (ids, types, usernames, resolution errors). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling discover_chats, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which listing tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though discover_chats and get_chat sit right beside it in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the name that this returns the allowlisted subset rather than discovered or individual chats.

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