list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does disclose useful behavior such as recency-based ordering and that entries contain metadata rather than full messages, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether the result is paginated, or any constraints on the returned preview. The verbal 'List' start implies non-mutating behavior, but it is not fully explicit.

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 states the operation and ordering, and the second sentence explains exactly what each result entry contains. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of the schema names.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the most important result fields and clarifies that chat_guid links to the other tools. It does not describe the top-level response envelope or pagination behavior, but the schema and list-like nature of the tool keep those gaps minor.

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%, and both parameters (limit and offset) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning to those parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List conversations') and adds the sorting key ('most recently active first'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating what each returned entry contains, such as the chat_guid and unread message count, which frames this as the chat-overview tool rather than a message-level or search tool.

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 makes the main usage context clear: list chats to get chat_guid and summary data that other tools need. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool instead, but the connection to chat_guid, participants, unread counts, and last-message preview provides a strong sense of when this should be the first tool invoked.

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