List WhatsApp chats

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the ordering behavior ('most recently active first') and enumerates the fields each chat returns, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences plus a compact field list. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the field list is directly useful without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states what it lists, the ordering, the purpose, and the returned fields. The schema handles parameter details, and the field list effectively replaces an output schema. No critical information is missing.

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%; both 'limit' and 'filter' already have descriptions including defaults and constraints. The tool description does not add any extra meaning for parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('conversations'), with a clear ordering ('most recently active first') and a defined purpose ('discover chat_id values the other tools need'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_contacts or get_message without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to discover chat_id values needed by other tools, which gives clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough. Sibling tools like search_contacts focus on contacts, not chats, so the distinction is implicit but clear.

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