get_chat_participants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions a specific behavior (resolving contact names), but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or return format details. It adds some value beyond the tool name, but leaves ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place: it states what the tool does, the output enrichment, and a typical use case. Highly scannable and 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?

The schema shows all three parameters as optional, but the description does not clarify that at least one identifier is needed to select a chat. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure; it says 'resolved contact names' but not whether it returns an array, an object, or how empty results are handled. The description is adequate for a simple getter but leaves this operational gap.

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 schema already includes descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The schema provides clear meanings for 'name', 'chat_id', and 'chat_guid' (with example), so the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('participants of a chat'), and the added detail 'with resolved contact names' clarifies the output. It also explicitly mentions 'useful for group chats,' distinguishing it from sibling tools about conversations, messages, and attachments.

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 gives clear usage context with 'Useful for group chats,' indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other scenarios, but the provided context is sufficient for basic selection among siblings.

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