get_conversation

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the tool is read-only and describes the output as the visitor and full thread in chronological order. It could mention potential error cases or response size limits, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences concisely convey purpose, output, and usage guidelines. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description provides complete context: what it reads, how to get the ID, and what to do next. Missing details about error handling or pagination are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the single parameter with a description linking it to list_conversations, and the tool description reinforces this source requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema definition, earning an above-baseline score.

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 reads a support conversation with the full message thread, including visitor, agent, and internal notes, ordered oldest first. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conversations (listing) and reply_to_conversation (writing).

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?

Explicitly instructs to resolve the conversation_id using list_conversations and never guess it, and directs to reply_to_conversation or add_note for follow-up actions. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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