list_access

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries real weight, and it does disclose the return payload (chat id, name, directories) plus how to reuse names as chat_id. It omits whether the call is read-only (implied by 'Show' but unstated), whether the list is paginated, and whether it reflects permissions of the caller.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the actionable tip about chat_id. Nothing is repeated or wasteful.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, describing both the returned entities (chats and directories, including id and name) and how to consume them covers what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or ordering behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to elaborate. The schema is an empty object, consistent with a no-argument listing call.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists allowed chats with their 'id and name' plus directories, which is clearly a read/enumerate operation distinct from siblings like add_chat, remove_chat, or send_message. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use names as chat_id when sending' ties the output to a follow-up action (send_message/send_photo/send_document), which implies when to use it. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives, so the guidance is suggestive rather than directive.

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