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 well covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that it 'cannot send messages or change read state,' which clarifies the exact limitations for chat operations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It earns its place by stating both what the tool does and a key limitation. It could be slightly more detailed about parameter usage without becoming bloated, but as written it is highly efficient.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, the description is somewhat incomplete because it does not help the agent understand the 'view' enum choices or pagination semantics. The enum names like 'list', 'messages', 'files', and 'participants' are self-explanatory, and defaults/constraints in the schema fill some gaps, but richer guidance would be beneficial.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. However, the description mentions no parameters at all. While the schema provides enum values for 'view', defaults, and constraints for limit/offset/chat_id, the agent gets no additional semantic meaning from the description about how to choose a view or what chat_id should represent.

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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('existing chat data'). It effectively communicates that this tool is for retrieving chat data. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the 'chats' resource is distinct among the listed siblings.

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 implies the tool is for reading chats by saying 'Read existing chat data' and clarifies that sending messages or changing read state is not possible. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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