superchat_list_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are 'metadata, not messages,' the endpoint is public, and it returns only one page. This exceeds the baseline without contradicting 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use a sibling instead. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema. The most important scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 paginated list tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key operational facts: page size behavior, return type (metadata not messages), filter limitations, and the contact-scoped alternative. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned pagination envelope could help, but the schema's cursor descriptions already imply it. Overall, the agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 100%, and all three parameters (after, limit, before) have detailed descriptions including defaults, bounds, and cursor semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('conversation threads across the workspace'), and immediately clarifies scope ('one page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_contact_conversations by noting the workspace-wide scope. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use list_contact_conversations to scope the list to one contact.' It also states what filters are unavailable (status, inbox, text), which prevents the agent from expecting unsupported behavior. This is strong usage guidance.

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