list_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering and the kind filter, but does not describe return shape, query semantics, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. This is a partially transparent read-list description.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action and sort order first and a single clarifying parameter note second. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 basic list operation this is serviceable, but with no output schema and no annotations it should state what a returned chat entry looks like and clarify the query parameter. These gaps prevent full end-to-end confidence.

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 should compensate. It only explains kind ('dm', 'group', or omit); limit, offset, and especially query are left undefined, even though query's semantics are not obvious from the parameter name alone.

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 and resource, 'List WhatsApp chats', and states the sort order, making it distinct from sibling tools such as list_messages and list_contacts. The kind line further clarifies scope by chat type.

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 implies that the tool is for retrieving an ordered chat list, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_messages, search_messages, or get_chat_context. There are no exclusions or alternative-route conditions.

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