list_web_chats

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that user names are 'Resolved automatically', warns that contact is an internal ID and not a person's name, and explicitly warns against invalid sort fields like 'created' or 'edited'. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the raw function name.

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 appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool. It opens with a single purpose sentence, then uses a clean, indented Args block with one line per parameter, including examples and warnings. Every sentence adds value; there is no padding.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It covers all parameters, provides defaults, warns about invalid inputs, and references companion tools for ID lookup. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described in detail.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every one of the 9 parameters, including value formats, defaults, and cross-tool lookups. This goes well beyond the bare schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 starts with 'List web chat activities with chat-specific fields (state, disconnection, missed)', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_web_chat or list_messenger_chats. The tool's scope is unambiguous.

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 purpose is clear and contextual clues like 'Use list_queues to find names' and 'call list_contacts(search=...) first' provide cross-tool guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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