list_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: the ordering (pinned first, then most recent) and that each entry carries the last message. It does not describe pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though packing ordering and return-content into the same clause makes it slightly dense.

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?

A read-only list tool with an output schema, so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies ordering and content context; only pagination semantics are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents kind, limit, query, and include_archived; account and offset are undocumented there. The description implies the chat kinds covered by "individuelles et groupes" but adds no filtering or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (discussions/chats), and adds scope detail: both individual and group chats, ordered pinned-then-recent, including the last message. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_recent or list_messages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what is listed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and names no alternative. With siblings like list_recent and search_messages available, an agent gets no help deciding between them.

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