list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses deterministic ordering, optional filtering, and cursor-based pagination, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return format, but for a simple read-only listing tool, the disclosed behaviors are adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. No redundant phrasing or excessive detail.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what is listed, ordering, optional filter, and pagination. It does not describe the return item structure, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds some context by linking 'search' to 'name substring' and explaining cursor pagination, but it does not add meaning for the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema constraints. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('archived chats'), and the scope ('1:1 and group'), and adds a distinctive behavioral detail ('ordered deterministically by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_chats_by_name, which likely searches non-archived chats.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it lists archived chats, supports optional name substring filtering, and explains pagination via cursor. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specification of 'archived' and the pagination method offer enough guidance for correct use.

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