List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the return fields and scope, which is consistent with the annotations, but does not add much behavioral detail beyond that.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, scope, and output fields; the second gives a direct usage pointer to the related messages tool. 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?

For a low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter)Skip, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It states the input scope, output fields, and how to use the result (chat id with list_chat_messages).

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%: the only parameter, top, is fully described in the schema as 'Maximum chats (capped by TEAMS_MAX_RESULTS)'. The tool description does not add further parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the signed-in user's 1:1 and group chats') and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channels or list_teams.

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 identifies the signed-in user's chat scope and tells the agent to use a chat id with list_chat_messages, giving a clear next step. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_channel_messages, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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