list_conversations

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

The description discloses that it 'scans the brain directory for conversation folders and reads metadata,' adding context beyond the pure listing function. Since no annotations are provided, it carries the full burden; however, it omits any side effects, permission requirements, or read-only guarantee, though 'list' implies a safe read.

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 two sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It efficiently states the purpose and the underlying mechanism.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It mentions summaries and the scanning mechanism, providing adequate context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema describes the 'limit' parameter with its default and type, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but it doesn't contradict the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists 'all Antigravity conversations with their summaries' using the specific verb 'list' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_artifacts, which target a different resource, and list_delegated_tasks.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to retrieve conversations. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, though the sibling set makes the use case fairly obvious.

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