Get Conversation

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

The description says 'Read-only unless mark_as_read is true,' which admits a state-changing mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That directly contradicts the annotation and is therefore scored 1 per the contradiction rule, despite the useful warning that message bodies are fenced as untrusted.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The purpose and the key read-only caveat are both front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: it says the result is a full message thread with authors and times, and it warns that message bodies are untrusted. The only gap is the annotation contradiction, which is handled separately.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for mark_as_read by explaining that it changes the read-only behavior, which is useful since the schema only says 'Default false.'

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full message thread for one Inbox conversation.' The scope ('one Inbox conversation') and returned content ('authors and times') make it clearly distinguishable from list_conversations and reply_to_conversation.

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 specifying retrieval of one Inbox conversation, but it does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus list_conversations, mark_conversation_read, or other conversation-related siblings. It provides context but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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