get_common_chats

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the name and annotations already convey. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The phrase 'common chats' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no extra context about pagination, result format, or edge cases.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, earning a high score for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it merely restates the tool name, missing opportunities to add valuable context; this slight redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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, the output schema, and complete annotations, the description is minimally viable: it states the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics, and the presence of many sibling tools makes the lack of differentiation guidance a notable gap. It is adequate but not fully 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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. While 'user' is implicitly referenced as the specified user, the description does not clarify whether it accepts an ID or username (schema allows both) or explain the 'limit' parameter (default 50). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 'Общие чаты с указанным юзером' clearly identifies the resource (common chats) and the scope (with a specified user), distinguishing it from other chat-list tools like list_chats or get_dialogs_by_ids. The verb is implied by the tool name 'get', so the action is understandable, though not explicitly stated in the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., needing a user ID or username), or exclude other tools like search_global or list_chats. The description solely states the function without contextual usage advice.

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