List chats

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the data source is the gateway's own message log, coverage is limited to chats with activity since linking, and results cap at 100 with no paging available.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the caveats. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description still discloses the return cap (up to 100) and absence of paging, plus the coverage limitation. Nothing material for correct invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The note about no paging parameters is useful but concerns the API, not input arguments.

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 (chats) and immediately scopes it: chats the gateway has observed on this channel from its own message log. This distinguishes it from a general account chat list and from siblings like list_groups.

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?

Clarifies the operating context by explicitly ruling out the full account chat list and noting that chats with no activity since the number was linked are absent. It doesn't name a sibling alternative to use instead, but the scope conditions are clear enough to guide selection.

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