remind_list_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it enumerates returned fields (notably canSend) and, importantly, warns that returned text is third-party and untrusted and must be treated as data, not instructions — a behavioral/safety trait no annotation conveys. It stops short of covering pagination, ordering, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is listed first, how to filter second, the untrusted-content caveat last where it is most salient. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and flags the untrusted-content risk, which is what an agent most needs for a chat-listing read. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely mirrors them (uuids, class, search string). Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List conversation streams') and immediately enumerates the payload (unread counts, member counts, last-updated, per-stream permissions). The resource type is distinct from siblings like remind_get_messages or remind_list_entities, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent how to narrow results ('Filter to specific uuids, a class, or a search string') but never states when this tool is preferable to a sibling such as remind_get_messages or remind_graphql. Usage is implied by the listing/filtering semantics rather than spelled out.

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