get_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It clearly says 'read its message history', implying non-destructive read. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like marking as read, or whether it requires a session. The term 'Open' could imply something more, but the clarification to 'read' mitigates ambiguity. It lacks details on response structure, but for a single-purpose tool, it's adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. The parenthetical adds necessary detail without fluff. It's concise but could be slightly clearer by separating the matching criteria.

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 one required param and no output schema guardian. The description covers the core functionality, but doesn't mention session requirements, error scenarios, or the response format. Given the sibling tool set includes login-based tools, the agent might need to know if authentication is implied. Still, for a simple read tool, it's reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is crucial. It explicitly explains that thread_query is matched by recruiter/company name, giving the parameter concrete meaning beyond the generic schema. That's a strong compensation for the schema's lack of description.

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 opens a conversation and reads its message history, specifying that the conversation is matched by recruiter/company name. This gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool does without ambiguity. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly say what the output will be (message history), though it implies reading it.

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 explains how to match (recruiter/company name) but doesn't state when to prefer this over siblings like get_inbox or send_message. There's no mention of prerequisites like being logged in, or context about the agent's goal. It's functional but not prescriptive.

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