فهرست گفتگوها

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (newest activity first) and the fact that each conversation carries unread counts, message counts, and pinned status. It omits pagination/limit-follow behavior for a list tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core scope (what is listed, in what order, with what fields) is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields (unread and message counts, pinned flag) and the sort order. It stops short of describing list size/pagination semantics implied by the limit parameter, but for a 3-param read-only list tool it is close to complete.

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 kind (with its enum meanings), limit, and unread_only are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('chat conversations of the workspace') plus scope details (newest activity first, unread/message counts, pinned flag). It is clearly distinct from siblings like mizito_get_messages and mizito_get_conversation, which take ids rather than enumerate.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream: 'Use the ids with mizito_get_messages, mizito_send_message and the other chat tools,' which establishes this as the entry point for chat flows. It does not say when to prefer mizito_search_messages or mizito_get_conversation over this list, so no explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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