chat_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important nuance: closed sessions are included and marked. It does not mention ordering, default behavior when working_dir is empty, or other response characteristics, though 'List' implies a read-only operation.

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, efficient sentence that fronts the primary action and bundles the important behavioral note about closed sessions. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the optional filter. It does not cover pagination, sorting, or what an empty working_dir means, but the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and default value, with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the working directory is an optional filter, giving meaning to the sole parameter beyond what the schema offers.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists chat sessions, not individual messages, which distinguishes it from chat_history. Mentioning that closed sessions are included and marked adds useful scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing chat sessions and that working_dir is an optional filter, which implies the typical use case. However, it does not provide any explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like chat_history or chat_start, nor does it state exclusions.

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