list_group_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, bounded read operation. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (member counts, message volumes, activity dates) and clarifies what constitutes a group chat. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality with specific data points. The second sentence provides necessary clarification about what constitutes a group chat. There's minimal wasted language, though the second sentence could potentially be integrated more smoothly.

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 read-only listing tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned. However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify the exact structure of returned objects (e.g., whether it's an array of objects with specific fields). The description also lacks information about error conditions, rate limits, or pagination behavior that would be helpful for an agent.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies filtering by message count through the mention of 'message volumes' but doesn't explicitly connect this to the 'min_messages' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all group chats') with specific attributes (member counts, message volumes, activity dates). It distinguishes group chats from other conversation types by defining them as having multiple participants. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group_chat' or 'conversation_gaps' beyond the basic listing function.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_group_chat' (for single chat details), 'conversation_gaps' (for analyzing conversation patterns), or 'search_messages' (for filtering content). There's no context about when this listing approach is preferred over other methods.

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