get_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. It states it's a 'Получить' (get) operation, implying read-only, but does not disclose any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a read tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and the status filter. No unnecessary information.

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 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and filter capability. It doesn't mention return format, but that is not critical for a standard list operation.

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 schema describes all three parameters (limit, offset, status) with clear descriptions, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description redundantly mentions the status filter but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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 states a clear verb ('Получить' = get) and resource ('список чатов' = list of chats). It differentiates from siblings like get_agents and get_contacts by the resource type. The filter by status adds specificity.

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 implies usage for retrieving chats with optional status filtering, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of others, nor does it mention any alternatives. Context is clear but not explicit about exclusions.

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