list_chat_flat_residents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists residents, without mentioning pagination (despite page/items parameters), response format, or whether 'chat purposes' implies filtering to chat-enabled residents. This lack of additional context leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It articulates the core function efficiently without redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 has 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward listing operation. However, it leaves gaps: pagination behavior is not mentioned, the meaning of 'for chat purposes' is ambiguous (e.g., does it filter to chat-enabled residents?), and there is no mention of what fields are returned. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects a minimally viable but incomplete description.

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%, meaning all parameters (floor_id, page, items) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but does not need to compensate given the high coverage. The mention of 'specific floor' maps to floor_id, but this is not additional semantic insight.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('residents') with a clear scope ('on a specific floor') and purpose ('for chat purposes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_chat_enabled_residents and list_flats, making the tool's intent immediately understandable.

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. For example, it does not clarify whether this should be used instead of list_chat_enabled_residents when targeting a specific floor, or how it relates to list_chat_wings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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