workgroup_chat_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains (chat object, ID, messages), or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and lookup methods efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the returned chat looks like or what additional context might be needed. For a tool with three optional parameters, the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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%, and the schema itself already provides rich descriptions for all parameters (e.g., group_id suppresses name search, group_name requires minLength). The description merely restates the lookup options without adding new meaning or usage nuances.

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 states a specific action ('get the main chat') and target resource ('workgroup/project'), with two clear lookup methods (group_id or group_name). This distinguishes it from generic chat search tools like im_chat_find by focusing on workgroup chats.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need the main chat of a workgroup) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like im_chat_find or im_chat_messages are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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