list_chats

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

The description includes 'read-only', a key behavioral trait, and mentions an internal mapping to chat_brief. However, it does not clarify how 'unread' filters work or whether any authorization is required, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the 'T5' technical note is cryptic and adds noise without clear benefit.

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 an output schema, the description covers return fields and read-only nature, but misses parameter semantics and usage alternatives, leaving the tool under-specified for correct invocation.

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?

The description only repeats parameter names in a function signature ('iter_dialogs(limit, archived)') without explaining their meaning or effect. The input schema provides types and defaults, but no descriptions, so the description adds no value.

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 the tool lists dialogs with unread messages, including title, type, unread_count, and last message. The verb 'Список' (list) and resource 'диалогов' (dialogs) make the core purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like digest_unread.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about filtering behaviors or comparison to other list/read tools.

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