get_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that filtering supports partial phone matching, which is useful, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, whether messages are paginated, or what happens when both address and contact are supplied.

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 a single concise sentence in Spanish with no filler and the core resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail.

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 is simple: three optional parameters, an output schema, and no required inputs. The description covers the basic purpose and two filter parameters, but lacks guidance on limit behavior and parameter precedence. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding how to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'address' to phone and 'contact' to contact name, including the partial-match behavior, which adds real meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its default, or how the two filter parameters interact when both are provided.

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 identifies the resource as 'Hilo de SMS' (SMS thread) and states the filtering criteria: partial phone number or contact name. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_call_log or get_events, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as search_activity, sync_sms_history, or get_call_log. The description implies its use when an SMS thread is needed, but it provides no exclusions or comparison with alternatives.

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