List conversations across your assistants with cursor pagination and filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| assistant_id | No | ||
| customer_phone | No | ||
| external_identifier | No | ||
| whatsapp_sender_phone | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| last_page | No | ||
| current_page | No | ||
| next_page_url | No | ||
| prev_page_url | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds behavioral details by mentioning 'cursor pagination and filters', which informs the agent about the iterative query pattern and filtering capability. No contradictions 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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is essential: 'List conversations across your assistants with cursor pagination and filters.' It avoids redundancy and is immediately scannable.
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?
Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete for a list operation. It mentions pagination and filters, which are the key behaviors. However, it does not mention that all parameters are optional, nor does it explain the 'type' enum values or the meaning of 'external_identifier'. Slight gap but generally sufficient.
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?
The input schema has 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'with cursor pagination and filters'. While parameter names like 'type', 'cursor', 'per_page', 'assistant_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, constraints, or examples. The enum for 'type' is not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 'List conversations across your assistants with cursor pagination and filters'. It uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'conversations', scoping to 'across your assistants'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_conversation' (single conversation) and other list tools (e.g., 'list_calls') by explicitly naming the resource and the pagination mechanism.
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 usage by focusing on listing with pagination and filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation' for a single conversation or 'list_calls' for calls. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
