list_dialogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important default (50 most recent chats when no query) and that query expands scope from recent to all chats. It omits whether results are paginated, whether a limit can be raised, and any permission or rate-limit constraints.

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. The returned-field list comes first, then the default-vs-search behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence where it matters most for invocation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and with a single optional parameter the behavioral split is fully covered. The only gap is absence of any pagination or scope-ceiling detail for the default 50-chat listing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does: it explains that query matches chat title or participant first name and searches across all chats rather than only recent ones. That is the essential semantic the bare schema lacks, though matching rules (case sensitivity, substring vs exact) remain unstated.

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 the resource (user's chats) and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, unread count, name), which no sibling tool does — send_message and sync_chat are clearly different operations. The verb is implied rather than stated ("Чаты пользователя"), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use split for the two modes (no query = 50 most recent; with query = search across all chats), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as sync_chat, leaving the agent to infer that this is the read/list entry point.

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