List claude.ai conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ordering ('newest first') and return fields (uuid, title, timestamps), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any access requirements or potential side effects. The listing nature implies safety, but it is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return type and an alternative tool pointer. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 list tool with pagination, the description covers the essential purpose, ordering, return fields, and a related alternative. Since the schema already documents parameter syntax and there is no output schema, the description's explicit mention of returned fields fills the gap. Minor omission: it does not describe pagination behavior itself, but schema handles that.

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?

All three parameters (limit, offset, contains) already have clear descriptions in the schema, totaling 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool lists conversations from claude.ai web account, with the specific verb 'list' and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_web_conversation by noting it returns multiple conversations and pointing to that tool for pulling one in.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Use read_web_conversation to pull one in,' which conveys when to use a different tool for single-conversation retrieval. However, it does not elaborate on exclusions for the other sibling tools (debug_connection, save_web_conversation), though their purposes are inferable from their names.

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