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 explains the return format (Chat objects with metadata, truncated messages, participants) and discloses no destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read/list tool. It could mention rate limits or authentication, but given the tool's simplicity, transparency is good.

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 well-structured with a clear summary followed by parameter details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose is effective.

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 output schema exists, the description still provides a clear explanation of return values. All 6 parameters are documented, and the tool's behavior is fully described. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, possible values (including enum options for label), and defaults. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 group and DM chats with metadata, filtering, and sorting. It distinguishes from siblings like search_message_contents and get_messages by focusing on chat listing rather than message search.

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 lists filtering and sorting options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names imply different scopes (e.g., search_message_contents), providing implicit guidance.

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