tg_structure

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by listing what the map includes and emphasizing 'in one call', indicating a comprehensive snapshot without side effects. It doesn't discuss pagination or output format, but the annotations carry the safety burden and the scope detail adds real value.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the overview with a list of included elements, the second sentence gives usage guidance, and the Args line is minimal. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter read-only snapshot tool, the description covers the key questions: what the tool returns (account-level structure) and what the sample parameter does. It lacks explicit notes on output shape or potential size limits, but the enumerated contents and rich annotations provide sufficient context for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the only parameter. The Args line explains that 'sample' includes this many example chats from the main list and archive, giving the parameter real meaning beyond the schema's integer/default. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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 states the tool maps the whole account in one call and enumerates the exact contents: chat-type counts, unread, pinned, archive, and folders. It distinguishes itself from siblings with 'Start here... rather than about one conversation', targeting the account-shape use case clearly.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use: 'Start here when asked about the shape of the account'. It also gives a when-not-to-use: 'rather than about one conversation', though it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, so the guidance is contextful but not fully explicit about sibling names.

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