List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return format (compact row per chat with id, name, kind, unread count, preview) and the newest-first ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with the ordering and return shape front-loaded. Every sentence carries information, though the closing fields tip is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned row contents and ordering. It is largely complete for a read-only list tool, with only the sibling-routing context left unstated.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the fields parameter ('Use fields to cut it down further') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recent conversations') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus the returned row shape. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search, history, or get_chat.

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 phrase 'Recent conversations' implies the browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as search or get_chat for targeted lookups. Usage is left to inference.

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