list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that unread counts are included and implies a non-mutating read operation, but it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, whether archived dialogs are included, or any access prerequisites.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core action, resource, and key output detail (unread counts) 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description captures the core purpose and result shape adequately. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves minor behavioral gaps such as sort order, pagination semantics, and whether the operation has side effects.

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 already documents the single 'limit' parameter with a default and description, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('all dialogs') while enumerating the chat types (groups, channels, DMs). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_chat_info or get_dialogs_stats, which target single chats or statistics.

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 phrase 'List all dialogs' implies a straightforward enumeration use case and makes clear it is not for fetching a single chat or stats. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_dialogs_stats or search-based siblings, nor does it call out any exclusions.

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