codex_list_project_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bounded read model' hinting at scope, but omits behavioral traits like pagination, authorization, or mutability. Does not contradict annotations (none).

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, each serving a clear purpose: first defines function, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, but output schema exists. The description covers primary function and usage but lacks details on pagination, filtering, and preview options. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%. The description adds no detail on parameters like include_archived, cursor, limit, etc. Beyond stating 'list chats,' it fails to compensate for empty schema descriptions, leaving agents guessing about optional controls.

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 identifies the tool as listing chats for one project from a bounded read model, distinguishing it from siblings like codex_list_active_chats (cross-project) and codex_search_chats (search). The verb 'list' and object '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?

Explicitly states use case: 'find existing threads before continuation or review.' Also suggests next calls. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the provided context is strong.

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