Recent topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (counts, tags, titles per week), which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about how aggregation is scoped or whether results are paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon list of returned elements; no filler. The trailing clause 'the chats' titles week by week' is slightly awkward but still informative.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely for a two-optional-parameter read tool. Minor gaps remain around aggregation scope (all platforms combined vs. per-platform totals) and result size.

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 coverage is 100% – both 'days' (default 30, max 3650) and 'platform' (enumerated examples) are documented in the schema. The description only echoes them loosely ('over a stretch of days', 'each platform') without adding format or default details, so the baseline applies.

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 names the resource (topics the user discussed with their AIs over a date range) and enumerates the specific aggregates returned: per-platform chat counts, top tags, and titles by week. That is specific enough for an agent to tell it apart from list_chats or read_chat, though it never names a sibling or a verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over search_chats or list_chats, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a summarization/analytics view rather than a retrieval tool.

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