list_recent_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 only states the sort order and does not explain what 'active' means, how 'hours_ago' affects results, or any edge-case behavior. This is minimal and leaves several operational aspects ambiguous.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action with 'List' and efficiently conveys the core behavior. Every word contributes to meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.

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 read-only list with two optional parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It doesn't clarify how 'limit' and 'hours_ago' interact, what 'active' means in this context, or whether any pagination strategy exists. The absence of an output schema makes the return type implicit (a list), but overall the description leaves some user-visible behavior unexplained.

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 input schema covers both parameters ('limit' and 'hours_ago') with descriptions, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clarifies the resource as 'recent active conversations' with a sorting criterion, which is clear and action-oriented. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'list_chats_structured', so the purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_chats_structured' or 'search_messages'. The description implies a use case for recent chats but provides no explicit guidance, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without help in choosing among siblings.

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