List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the result ordering ('newest first') and the line-level shape with ids, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the schema, total counts, or result limits.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with scope and ordering front-loaded ahead of the read_chat pointer. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description's note that each line carries a chat id partially covers the return shape, and filters are fully covered by the schema. What remains thin is the distinction from search_chats and pagination expectations.

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 100%, with each filter (tag, title, since, until, platform, limit, offset) documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filterable dimensions without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse the user's saved conversations') plus ordering and filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_chats, leaving the list-vs-search boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'newest first' and the closing hint that each line carries the id for read_chat, which sketches a browse-then-read workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-search_chats guidance or stated preconditions, so the agent must infer the choice.

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