List chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: result ordering, the inclusion scope, and the important caveat that a missing state field means 'unknown to wuapi', not false. It does not cover pagination behavior or result volume limits beyond the schema's cursor.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before the filtering and routing guidance, and every sentence carries information. The first sentence is dense and semicolon-packed, which slightly slows parsing, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the state semantics. It also names the downstream tool for reading a conversation. The only gap is pagination/result-set behavior, which is left to the cursor parameter's schema text.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented with enums, bounds and defaults. The description restates the filter options and the meaning of q, but adds little syntax or semantics the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 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 ('An account's conversations') plus the ordering ('newest message first') and the exact payload fields returned. It also carves out scope ('Only chats wuapi stored a message of'), which cleanly separates it from get_chat and list_messages.

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?

Gives explicit filter guidance (by archived, unread or type, or search with q) and routes the agent onward: 'Read a conversation with list_messages and the chat's id as chatId.' No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the sibling routing is clear enough to select correctly.

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