list_chats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful safety disclosure, and adds ordering ('newest activity first') and scope ('this account can see'). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only listing operation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the practical use case and a concise safety note.

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 is complete enough for a low-complexity list tool: it gives purpose, ordering, scope, safety, and a hint about the output fields (id/@username). It does not describe the full response shape, but there is no output schema and the parameters are simple and well documented.

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 kind, limit, and query are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Telegram chats, channels and groups this account can see'), and a concrete purpose ('find the id or @username to pass to the other tools'). It distinguishes itself from search_public_chats by scoping to chats the account can see, and from search_messages by listing chats rather than 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 when to use this tool: before calling other tools that need a chat id or @username. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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