list_in_attendance_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filters and pagination but does not indicate that the operation is read-only, safe, or idempotent. There is no mention of authorization needs, rate limits, or response structure.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the main purpose and includes key filter categories 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?

Given the tool has 10 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'em atendimento' or typical usage patterns. However, the schema covers parameter details, so the description only needs to provide high-level context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of filters (responsible, status, pagination) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The extra value is minimal.

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 all chats in attendance with optional filters, specifying the resource (chats em atendimento) and scope (da organização). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_archived_chats or list_inbox_chats, relying on the name for differentiation.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent receives no direction on selecting this over other list tools.

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