yupao_list_conversations

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it syncs via the official SDK, requires the chat dependency, and notably does NOT mark messages as read. These are meaningful traits beyond structured fields, though return format and pagination remain undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with three clauses, each carrying distinct information (sync source, default exclusion, no read-marking). Zero waste.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly but omits pagination semantics for limit/offset and any sense of the returned structure. Adequate but with clear gaps around the parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the include_system behavior ('默认排除系统助手'), leaving limit and offset entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation is insufficient for a list tool with 3 paginated parameters.

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 (sync/list conversations) and resource (conversations + HR contact profiles), which distinguishes it from yupao_get_messages. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to route the agent.

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?

Implies usage (requires the chat dependency, excludes system assistants by default) but never states when to use this over yupao_get_messages or yupao_check_messaging_session. The prerequisite note is useful but not an explicit when/when-not guideline.

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