Find Chats

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds value by specifying that the tool returns chat metadata including last message and unread count. It does not contradict any annotations, but also doesn't disclose potential limitations like pagination or open-world variability, though those are partially covered by openWorldHint.

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 consists of two short, information-dense clauses: the core function and a preview of the returned data. Every part serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of readOnlyHint, the description adequately covers the essential behavior and return type. The mention of 'last message, unread count, etc.' gives the agent a useful expectation, though a structured output schema would have made it more complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any argument semantics. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here since there is nothing more to clarify.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'WhatsApp chats/conversations', making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_contacts and find_messages by targeting chat-level metadata, which leaves no ambiguity about its scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_groups or find_messages. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.

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