volkern_list_conversaciones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists conversations, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no lead filter is applied. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('List WhatsApp conversations') and includes an optional filter detail. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool, such as explaining pagination behavior, response format, or error conditions. The description alone is insufficient for a list tool with multiple parameters and no structured support.

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 33% (only 'leadId' has a description), and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'optionally filtered by lead', which aligns with 'leadId', but does not explain the semantics of 'page' and 'limit' parameters (e.g., pagination details, default values, or constraints). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the undocumented 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List WhatsApp conversations') and resource ('WhatsApp conversations'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'volkern_list_contacts' or 'volkern_list_leads' by focusing on WhatsApp conversations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in terms of scope or verb specificity beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by lead ('optionally filtered by lead'), which suggests a context for when to apply this filter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'volkern_list_leads' or 'volkern_list_interactions', and does not specify any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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