list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read-only list operation via 'list' and 'returns', which is sufficient for transparency. It does not disclose potential rate limits or pagination behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable. The return fields are clearly stated, adding confidence in what the tool does.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('List your Telegram chats...'), and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists the fields returned (name, ID, type, unread count), which is complete for a list tool. The input schema (with default values) covers the parameters. The tool is simple, and the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the return fields. The parameters (limit, filter) are adequately documented in the schema, so the description does not need to expand on them. A score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'your Telegram chats, channels, and groups', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also specifies the return fields (name, ID, type, unread count), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chat_info (single chat) or read_messages (messages within 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the filter parameter's role in selecting between chat types, nor does it advise against use when a specific chat's info is needed (for which get_chat_info would be more appropriate). The lack of explicit context or exclusions leaves the agent to 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.