list_archived_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool shows service evaluation and cancellation status, which adds value. However, it does not describe scope, ordering, pagination behavior, or potential performance impacts. Some key behavior (e.g., what 'archived' means, if results are limited to the user) is omitted.

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 two sentences in Portuguese, very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key output details. No extraneous words or filler.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation and mentions two output fields (evaluation, cancellation). However, it does not describe the overall return structure (e.g., pagination metadata, fields like client, department, etc.), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only mentions 'optional filters' without adding any extra context or clarifying parameter relationships. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the description provides no additional value beyond the baseline 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 that the tool lists archived (finished or canceled) chats with optional filters. It specifies the resource and action, and mentions output details like evaluation and cancellation status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_in_attendance_chats or list_my_chats, though the term 'archived' implies a specific state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for archived chats only, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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