get_chat

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope by indicating what kind of details are returned for group versus person chats, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and its type-dependent result. Every clause contributes to distinguishing group and person chat details, with no redundant or filler content.

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 output schema and read-only annotations relieve the description of explaining return values and safety, so the core retrieval purpose is adequately conveyed. However, it does not resolve ambiguity with sibling tools like get_contact or get_profile, leaving an important routing gap for an agent.

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 only 50%: the required 'chat' parameter is documented as JID, international number, or chat name, but the optional 'account' parameter has no description. The tool description itself mentions no parameters and therefore does not compensate for the undocumented 'account' parameter.

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 states a specific resource (a chat/discussion) and distinguishes the returned fields for groups versus people, which is more than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_contact or get_profile, so sibling routing remains inferential.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than list_chats, get_contact, get_profile, or update_chat. The description only implies that it retrieves chat details; it provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection advice.

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