bitrix24_im_chat_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that results are sorted by last activity and limited to the current user's chats. However, it does not mention side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, or limitations like pagination or whether archived chats are included. This leaves moderate gaps for a safe read operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary fluff or repetition. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality well. It explains what the tool does, how the results are sorted, and the intended use case. However, it omits the default value for the limit parameter (50) and does not mention pagination behavior, which would be helpful for agents consuming large datasets.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (type and limit), with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what is in the schema, resulting in no extra value. 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 clearly states the tool lists IM chats the current user participates in, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IM chats'). It also indicates the output is sorted by last activity and provides a concrete purpose (discover chat IDs for reading messages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bitrix24_im_chat_search and bitrix24_im_chat_messages.

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 explicit usage context ('discover chat IDs for reading messages'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like bitrix24_im_chat_search for searching. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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