list_chats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: archived chats are included unless folder rules exclude them, and cursors freeze the selected chat list so subsequent pages must use the same filters.

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 with the primary purpose before pagination and filtering caveats. Each sentence adds relevant operational context, though the formatting is slightly loose.

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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers important non-obvious behavior: folder union semantics, archive inclusion, and cursor stability. It leaves limit and chat_type mostly to the schema, which is acceptable because their constraints and enum values are visible there.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaning for query (title or username matching), cursor (freezes the list and requires consistent filters), and folder_ids (union of folders), but does not explain limit or chat_type semantics.

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 permitted chats', and adds scope through optional folder unions and pagination. It is clear what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_messages, list_folders, or get_chat.

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 implies when to use the tool by noting optional folder filtering and full pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_chats over adjacent tools like search_messages or list_folders. Usage guidance is present but inferential rather than directive.

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