list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior tied to 'limit', auth needs for 'account', or ordering. That is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler; the key verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the usage and parameter gaps.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain limit/account and pagination. It discloses the return shape but leaves parameter behavior and operational context undocumented.

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?

Two parameters exist ('limit', 'account') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and instead mentions neither. The default of 50 for limit and the meaning of an empty account string are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('List') and resource ('chats'), and goes further by naming the payload fields (stable references, unread counts, pinned state). This distinguishes it from search_chat's query semantics, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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 statement of when to use this versus search_chat, get_unread, or list_chat_folders, all of which sit adjacent in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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