chat_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. No mention of whether it is safe, idempotent, or how filtering works beyond a hint.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, and the optional filter is succinctly mentioned. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It covers the main purpose and the optional filter, though it omits details about ordering or what constitutes a 'chat session' context. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that working_dir is an optional filter for the listing. It does not provide details on matching semantics (e.g., exact path, prefix), but the basic meaning is conveyed beyond the schema's 'Working Dir' label.

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 lists chat sessions with an optional working directory filter. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like chat_history or chat_start, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for viewing available chat sessions, and the optional filter adds context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over chat_history or other chat tools, and no when-not-to-use instructions.

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