common_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee of no side effects, and the scoping 'account shares' clarifies ownership semantics. It does not mention response shape or pagination, but those are less critical for a simple read accessor.

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?

Two short sentences carry the entire description with zero filler. The resource and scope come first, and the behavioral qualifier 'Read-only' follows immediately.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The output is implicitly a list of chats, which is natural from the name and description. A small gap is the absence of any mention of ordering or what 'common' means beyond shared membership, but neither is likely to block correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents both user and limit. The description adds only the vague echo 'with a given user,' which maps to the user parameter but provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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: groups and channels shared with a specific user, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_chats and chat_info. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' so the operation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'with a given user' implies this tool is for when a user relationship is the filter, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over list_chats or search_public_chats. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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