List active IRC conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is understood. The description adds the 'had activity' filter, which is useful, but it does not disclose default time windows, result ordering, pagination, or how 'active' is determined. Some behavioral context is added beyond annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 having an output schema, the tool requires more context for proper use. The three optional parameters are entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on how the time window works or what limits apply. This makes the description inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in varied situations.

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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters (hours, limit, account), and the description provides no explanation of these parameters. The agent cannot infer units (hours), meaning of limit, or account scoping from either the description or schema, which is a critical gap.

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 resource ('channels and DMs') with a clear scope ('had activity in the given time window'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like irc_list_networks (networks) or irc_read_history (message content).

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 the tool is for finding active conversations within a time window, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., irc_read_history for individual messages) nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is present but no guidance is given.

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