list_dialogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal important behavior: results are sorted newest first, include unread and last-message data, and can be scoped to the archive via archived=true. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention pagination/response behavior beyond what the output schema may convey.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core result semantics come first, followed by the two non-obvious filters. No filler or repetition, though limit is omitted. Each sentence earns its place.

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 description adequately covers the primary call semantics for a simple list tool with an output schema. However, it does not mention pagination/limit behavior or clarify how this tool relates to get_chat_folders and search_public, leaving a moderate gap in contextual guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify archived (archive folder) and query (case-insensitive substring), which is helpful beyond the schema's bare titles. But limit is not explained at all, leaving one of the three parameters semantically under-specified.

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 resource (dialogs/chats) and what is included: unread count, last message, and newest-first ordering. It distinguishes itself from search-oriented siblings by framing itself as a chronological listing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_chat_folders, search_public, or search_messages. The description explains what the tool returns and how filters behave, but does not state exclusions or preference conditions.

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