skill_active_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says it returns a summary of active chats. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how fresh the data is, whether it requires special permissions, or what form the summary takes (e.g., counts, group-by-agent). This is thin disclosure for a tool with zero structured metadata.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not verbose and every word contributes. It could be slightly more detailed, but for a zero-parameter tool it is efficiently structured.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic idea of what it returns (a summary of active chats). However, it does not specify the exact content of that summary, such as whether it includes operator names, chat counts, durations, or any time-window constraints. For an agent to confidently interpret results, more detail on the output format would be helpful, but it is not completely inadequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool takes no inputs, leaving nothing to explain.

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 provides a summary of current active chats with operators, using a specific verb ('provide summary') and resource ('active chats'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_chats by qualifying 'active' and 'summary', though it does not explicitly name the sibling. That is enough to establish core purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus get_chats or others. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for selecting between similar chat-list tools.

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