conversation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mention of return fields provides minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous content. It is well front-loaded, stating the verb and resource immediately, followed by examples of the returned data.

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 info tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of the return values. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or the meaning of 'etc.', leaving some ambiguity.

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% for the single parameter session_id, which is described as 'Session identifier'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it retrieves metadata about a paginated conversation (total pages, total tokens). It distinguishes from sibling tools like conversation_get_page or conversation_paginate, which focus on content or navigation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from conversation_context, which might overlap.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and description imply it's for metadata, but there is no statement about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for other needs.

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