signal_list_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and output attributes, omitting any behavioral traits such as whether it requires prior connection, is read-only, or has rate limits. This lacks sufficient transparency for safe agent invocation.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value: verb, resource, key output fields. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. For a simple list tool, the core purpose is covered, but the absence of output format details (e.g., array of objects, fields beyond timestamps) and no explanation of non-parameter dependencies leaves some contextual gaps. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information (none needed). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers the absence of parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'Lists', the resource 'Signal conversations (chats)', and the included information 'with last-active timestamps'. It distinctly identifies the Signal messaging context, avoiding confusion with sibling tools like slack_list_channels or whatsapp_list_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 usage when needing a list of Signal chats, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., signal_connect), and no exclusions. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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