list_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the result set (private + group chats) and the ordering (most recent conversation first), but says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or whether the list is scoped to the authenticated user.

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?

One sentence, zero padding, with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the ordering constraint appended compactly.

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, parameter-light read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it is ordered. Only pagination/scope details are missing, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter (with default 30) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the limit or how it interacts with recency ordering, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ดึงรายชื่อแชท' = list chats) and scopes it precisely to both 1-on-1 and group chats, sorted by latest conversation. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_chat_messages or list_friends, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating a user's conversations, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of when to prefer get_chat_messages or list_friends instead, and no prerequisites.

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