Get one chat

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

The description adds the nuance 'where the chat has them', indicating that optional fields may be absent, which is useful behavioral context. The readOnly and idempotent annotations already cover side effects, and the description does not contradict them.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point, with no unnecessary content. It conveys the essential purpose and returned data efficiently.

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?

The description provides enough detail about the return fields for a simple tool, and the annotations cover safety attributes. It does not mention error handling or the format of the response, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 input schema fully defines the 'peer' parameter with a clear description ('@username, numeric id, or 'me''), so the description does not need to add more. The schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 returns details of a single chat and enumerates the fields (name, kind, username, member count, description). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_chats, which handle multiple chats, and history, which deals with messages.

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 when a single chat's details are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough, but a more direct comparison would improve clarity.

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