list_recent_chats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It notes chronological order and recency, but does not disclose behavioral details like whether only metadata or full content is returned, pagination behavior, or rate limits. With an output schema present, return value details are covered, but behavioral transparency is minimal.

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?

Description is tightly written with no wasted words. Uses bullet points for usage guidance, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, and sibling tool differentiation.

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 simple tool (0 required params, 2 optional, output schema exists), the description provides clear purpose, usage scenarios, and alternative tools. It fully covers what an agent needs to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it merely restates 'Optional filter by origin' which is already in the schema. No new semantic context is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool action: 'Chronological browse of the user's most recent Claude.ai chats.' It uses a specific verb (browse) and resource (recent chats), and distinguishes from sibling `search_chats` by emphasizing chronological scanning vs. targeted search.

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?

Explicit 'USE when' section lists concrete user intents (e.g., 'what have I been up to', 'catch up on what I have been thinking about'), and explicitly states when not to use: 'For targeted topic/keyword searches use search_chats.' This provides clear alternative guidance.

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