List Chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful, non-obvious behavioral detail: the list may lag up to 5 minutes on the WhatsApp side, and an empty response after connection is expected rather than an error. It does not cover all possible behaviors, but the timing caveat is substantive.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the resource and output fields; the second adds the single most important behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 low-complexity read tool with no required parameters, the description covers core purpose and a key timing caveat, which would allow a basic call. However, the lack of parameter explanations—especially count—and the absence of any comparison to sibling list/detail tools leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool 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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The 'only' enum is documented in the schema, but the 'count' parameter is only described as integer/null with no meaning, bounds, or behavior explained, so an agent cannot reliably know what values are meaningful.

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 clearly identifies the resource as chats and contacts known to the instance, and even lists the returned fields (id, name, type). Though phrased as a noun ('Список...') rather than an explicit verb, it is unambiguous about what the tool produces and is broad enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_chat_history or get_contact_info.

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 provides useful usage context: the WhatsApp-side list refresh can take up to 5 minutes, and an empty response immediately after connection is normal and should be retried later. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as get_contact_info or get_group_data, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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