list-chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, default ordering, authentication, or any side effects. The optional filters are mentioned, but the direction and page_size parameters are not explained beyond the schema, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It quickly conveys the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it leaves out important context, but conciseness itself is well-handled.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover pagination behavior, default values, or when to use this tool among many sibling list tools. The description lacks the richness needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 50%, covering scope and search, but direction and page_size lack descriptions. The description merely repeats the existence of scope and search filtering without adding meaning for the other parameters or clarifying their semantics. It fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists user chats and mentions optional filtering by scope or search query. This is specific and distinct from siblings like get-messages or list-models, though it does not explicitly differentiate by naming alternatives. The verb 'list' and resource 'user chats' are clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-ai-services or get-messages. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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