List LINE chats

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no message bodies, official accounts excluded unless requested, newest-first ordering, and bounded results. This is useful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Four tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide usage guidance, scoping behavior, and ordering. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, when to use it, exclusions, ordering, and limited results. The phrase 'may be limited' is slightly vague about pagination or precise limits, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces the include_official default and the limit behavior but does not add material new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action and resource: return bounded chat metadata and stable chat IDs, explicitly excluding message bodies. This clearly distinguishes it from message-focused siblings like get_messages and search_messages.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool before get_messages when the chat ID is unknown, which is direct usage guidance. It also notes the official-account exclusion and newest-first ordering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_messages or get_recent_activity, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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