tg_common_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes what the tool returns (mutual groups/channels) but does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or explicitly state it is read-only. This is a basic level of transparency, not exceptionally detailed.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a practical use-case sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 adequate for a simple query tool but lacks parameter details and caveats. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the overall context is incomplete due to missing parameter semantics and behavioral disclosures that annotations would normally provide.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The tool description does not explain the 'user' or 'limit' parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer from names and types. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, the semantic guidance is weak.

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 states the tool's function: 'Groups and channels you and this person are both in.' This specifies the output resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_chat_info (single chat info) and tg_participants (participants in a chat). The additional use-case note ('where do we overlap', 'placing an unknown contact') reinforces the purpose.

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 description provides explicit use cases: 'Good for "where do we overlap" and for placing an unknown contact.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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