zcode_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully address it: it declares read-only behavior, notes that reads carry logEpoch and revision, and describes the staleness path (retry once, then reported degraded). This is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It omits auth requirements and pagination behavior, keeping 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its variants, followed by the read-only and staleness semantics. No filler.

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 tool with five action variants, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers safety and staleness but never explains what each action returns or how the limit/paging parameters behave per action. The safety profile is complete; the per-action contract is not.

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 documents session_id and the shape of each action variant. The description only names the action labels and adds no detail on limit, before_row_id, or row_id semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (a conversation) and enumerates the five action variants (rows, messages, events, plans, usage), which is enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like zcode_chat. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles what, so this lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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 only usage signal is 'Read-only,' which tells the agent this is safe but not when to choose it over zcode_chat, zcode_session, or zcode_usage. There is no guidance on selecting among the five actions or on prerequisites beyond session_id.

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