list_conversations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, and no clarification of what a 'conversation' comprises.

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?

Two words with zero wasted prose, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The tool has 3 parameters and ambiguous scope among 60+ siblings, so a minimal restatement does not earn its place as an adequate description.

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?

As a 0-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the structured data carries most of the load. However, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand what a conversation is here, what the type filter means semantically, or why to choose this over list_conversation_messages and list_org_inbox.

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% — type (direct | triad | group | classroom_feed), limit (default 20, max 100), and offset are all documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the description itself contributes no parameter information and the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is 'List Conversations' — a word-for-word restatement of the tool name. It identifies a verb and resource but adds no scope, no conversation-type context, and no differentiation from close siblings like list_conversation_messages or list_org_inbox.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing distinguishes it from list_conversation_messages or list_org_inbox, and no exclusions, preconditions, or context are stated.

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