armavita-quo-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering ('Ordered by most recent activity') which is valuable, but fails to describe pagination behavior (implied by pageToken parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes 'inactive' conversations. For a list operation with 9 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key behavioral trait (ordering). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 list operation with 9 well-documented parameters but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and ordering behavior, but lacks guidance on usage scenarios, pagination details, and response format. The absence of output schema means the agent doesn't know what data structure to expect.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the three main filter categories (phone number, user, date range) and the ordering, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'conversations', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other list tools like list_calls or list_messages by specifying the conversation resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with other conversation-related tools (none exist in siblings), or indicate when filtering is appropriate versus other list operations. The agent must infer usage from the parameter descriptions alone.

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