get_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the return envelope fields and the notable exclusion of message history. It stops short of mentioning error conditions or access requirements, but the core behavioral trait (what you do and do not get) is clearly disclosed.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds important return details and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The tool is simple (one param) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key differentiators: envelope fields, exclusion of message history, and the correct sibling tool for messages. It could mention relationship to get_conversation_timeline, but this is not essential for a basic getter.

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?

There is only one parameter, conversation_id, and the schema merely says it is a string (schema description coverage is 0%). The description does not add any detail about the required format, where to find the ID, or its exact role beyond the name. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single conversation thread'), states it returns the 'conversation envelope' with key fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_conversation_messages by noting it does NOT return message history. This clearly separates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use list_conversation_messages for the messages,' giving concrete guidance on when not to use this tool and which alternative to choose. This makes the usage context unambiguous.

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