get_chat_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and edge behavior on its own; it only states that details are returned and implies a read operation. It doesn't mention what happens for invalid chat IDs, whether any state changes occur, or auth/instance requirements.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and return fields, no filler. It could be a bit richer given the sparse schema, but as written it is efficient.

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?

Despite an output schema likely covering return fields, the description fails to document required input semantics, instance handling, or selection against siblings. For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is materially incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not explain the chat or instance parameters beyond implying chat is a contact/group. It doesn't specify the accepted format (identifier vs name) or the role of instance, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves details (identifier, name, group flag, last message) for a contact or group, matching the get_chat_info name and separating it from message-list/send tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_chats, list_groups, or get_messages, so it misses the top tier.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over get_messages, list_chats, or list_groups, nor any prerequisites such as having an instance or chat identifier. An agent must infer the intended use from the name and sibling context.

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