connects_chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the user-facing specificity of not sending messages or changing read state, but does not reveal further behaviors such as pagination, auth requirements, or how views behave. No contradiction with annotations.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the main action comes first, followed by explicit constraints. Every word earns its place.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure, but the tool has four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description does not clarify parameter interactions, such as chat_id being needed for message/file/participant views. An agent would have to guess at invocation requirements, so the definition is not complete enough.

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% and the description mentions no parameter semantics. It does not explain the view enum values, when chat_id is required, or how limit/offset paginate, so the agent receives no extra meaning beyond raw schema names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Read existing chat data') and immediately states what the tool cannot do (send messages or change read state). This makes its read-only purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from any chat-mutation counterpart in the sibling set.

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?

It gives clear context: use for reading existing chat data, not for sending messages or altering read state. It stops short of naming a specific alternative for those write actions, so it is just below the explicit when/when-not/alternative bar.

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