list_my_chats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic function without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, ordering, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 extremely concise with a one-line purpose and two parameter descriptions. There is no fluff or redundancy, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 pagination, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints. However, it lacks details such as default values (though schema shows defaults), ordering, and whether pagination yields all pages. The output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful info: 'Page number (optional)' and 'Items per page (optional)' clarifies the parameters' roles and optionality beyond the schema's type and default.

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 it lists chat rooms where the user is a participant, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_agent_chats for agents or list_my_chat_messages for messages, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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