list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool lists chats with IDs and permissions, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how permissions are formatted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and a usage scenario but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'permissions' entail or how results are structured would improve completeness, leaving it at an adequate but minimal level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters ('limit' and 'groupsOnly') are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the semantics of 'groupsOnly' or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'List all WhatsApp chats with their IDs and permissions.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('WhatsApp chats'), and what information is returned ('IDs and permissions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'list_allowed', which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to find chat IDs for config.json setup.' This gives a specific scenario for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like 'get_messages' (which might retrieve message content rather than chat metadata), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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