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 discloses the ordering behavior (most recently active first) and pagination parameters (limit/offset), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether metadata like total count is included, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a read-only list operation, the risk is lower, but the behavioral disclosure is incomplete relative to its responsibility.

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?

Two focused sentences with parameter documentation following immediately. The front-loaded 'most recently active first' ordering guidance is placed effectively at the start. The parameter docs are compact and each sentence earns its place. Slightly sparse but appropriately sized for a simple paginated list tool.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), which presumably documents the return structure. No annotations exist, so the description must cover safety/behavior. For a list operation with 2 optional params, the description is mostly complete: it explains what returns (conversations), the ordering, and pagination. Gaps: it doesn't mention any read-only guarantee, whether the list includes archived/deleted conversations, or if there are auth requirements. The gaps are minor for a simple list tool but exist.

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%, meaning the schema itself only provides type information (integer) and defaults — the description must add meaning. The description does document both parameters ('limit' as max conversations to return, 'offset' as conversations to skip for paging), which fully compensates for the schema gap. However, there are only 2 params with no enums, so the documentation burden is small. The descriptions are adequate but could be richer (e.g., max limit value, behavior when limit is 0 or negative).

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 clear verb and resource ('List conversations'), and specifies ordering by most recent activity. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the general 'list' operation — no mention of what differentiates this from other conversation-related tools, though no sibling descriptions were provided to compare against.

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 this is the primary listing tool for conversations ('most recently active first'), giving a sense of when it's appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., searching, filtering, retrieving a specific conversation). The default pagination behavior (limit 30, offset 0) is implied by the schema defaults but not explicitly explained as usage guidance.

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