contact_getChat

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose an important edge case: returns null when querying the chat for the currently logged-in user. However, it does not mention other behavioral details such as error handling for invalid contactIds or the structure of the returned chat object.

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 only two sentences, but the first two clauses are redundant: 'Get the chat' and 'Get the chat that corresponds to the contact' essentially restate the same idea. The null note is useful, but the redundancy makes the structure less 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?

For a simple getter with two well-described parameters, the description provides the core purpose and a key edge case, but lacks explicit mention of the return type (a chat object) and any failure behaviors. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a moderate gap, but the tool's simplicity mitigates it.

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?

Both contactId and sessionId have schema descriptions with examples, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts.

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 it retrieves a chat associated with a contact, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('chat that corresponds to the contact'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat_getContact by focusing on the chat-side lookup, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 tool's use case is implied: when you have a contactId and need the corresponding chat. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over client_getChatById or other chat retrieval methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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