yougile_list_group_chats

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds company-wide scope but does not disclose that pagination exists (default limit 50, offset) or that 'all' may require pagination. This is a notable behavioral trait beyond annotations, but the schema provides limit/offset hints, so the gap is not severe.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and robust annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or filtering (e.g., 'supports pagination and title filter') and return type, but the schema covers parameter details and the scope is clear. Lacks output schema, but the description's omission of return format is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, title) already explained. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('group chats') and clarifies the scope ('in the company'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yougile_get_group_chat (which fetches a single chat) and yougile_create_group_chat/update_group_chat (which mutate).

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 clear context that this tool lists all group chats, implying it is for browsing/querying multiple chats as opposed to retrieving one via get_group_chat. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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