list_conversations

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

The description mentions a 'write oculto' (hidden write) in Moodle, implying a write side-effect, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. Additionally, 'falla cerrado' is not explained (e.g., does it throw an error, return empty?), leaving behavior unclear. The description conflicts with structured metadata.

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 text is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not front-load any useful operational information; one sentence is a vague failure note and the other is a pointer to an alternative. It fails to serve the tool's own documentation purpose.

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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and only annotations that are contradicted, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles parameters, why it fails, or whether it is safe to use. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 0% and the description gives no parameter details. With four parameters (limit, offset, favourites, conversation_type), the description fails to explain any semantics beyond their names, leaving the agent without additional context for building correct arguments.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only says 'falla cerrado' (fails closed) and suggests using list_messages instead. No verb or resource describes the tool's actual function, so an agent cannot infer that it lists conversations. This is closer to a warning than a purpose statement.

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 instructs the agent to use list_messages instead to avoid a hidden write, providing a clear alternative and a reason. Though it advises against using this tool, it gives direct routing guidance to a sibling, which is helpful for selection.

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