List Unsorted Chats

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

With no annotations, the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but implies a read operation. It does disclose the return shape ({unsorted_count, shown, items[]}) which provides some insight into what the tool returns. However, it lacks details on pagination, performance, or error handling.

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 a single sentence defining functionality followed by a brief return value structure. It is front-loaded, concise, and every element serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 description covers the purpose and return format fully. However, given no output schema, it could mention edge cases (e.g., empty list) or error conditions. Still, for a simple list tool, it is adequate.

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 input schema has two parameters (limit, preview_chars) with defaults and ranges, but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain their purpose beyond what can be inferred from names. Since the coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not add any meaning.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists chats not in any '#'-prefixed collection. This differentiates it from sibling tools like oe_collections_list which lists collections, or oe_collections_summary which provides summaries.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No instructions on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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