list_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 clearly explains the two timestamps and their semantics, warns against misusing metadata_updated, discloses the default ordering, and describes how members are expanded. It also states the effect of include_raw. This is exemplary transparency beyond what a schema could convey.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the timestamp clarification and member expansion note prevent common misinterpretations. There is no filler or redundancy; it is dense yet readable.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly defines the return format (items array and next_page_token). It covers all parameters, explains edge cases (1:1 chats, timestamp misuse), and discloses pagination. For a list tool with no annotations, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 0%, meaning the schema offers no parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: limit (range and default), page_token (pagination continuation), and include_raw (payload inclusion). It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, making it highly effective.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Teams chats') and enumerates the chat types (1:1, group, meeting). It distinguishes from siblings like list_chat_messages (messages inside a chat) and list_joined_teams (teams), leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 clear context for interpreting results (e.g., member expansion for 1:1 chats) and explains the ordering (most recent message activity first). However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the sibling names make the distinction obvious. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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