list_conversations

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the view is 'simplified' (implying limited details compared to other tools) and that it filters conversations to those with activity in the last 6 months. This helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output characteristics, though it doesn't cover aspects like pagination or rate limits.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all conversations') followed by clarifying details about the output format and filtering. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly. There's no wasted space or unnecessary elaboration.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the simplified nature of the output, and the time-based filtering. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the structure of the returned conversations (e.g., what fields are included in the 'simplified view'), which slightly limits completeness for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and instead focuses on the tool's behavior and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it efficiently uses space to convey other useful information.

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 the tool's purpose as 'List all conversations' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns 'a simplified view' and limits to conversations with activity 'within the last 6 months', which differentiates it from tools like 'get_conversation' (single conversation) and 'list_messages' (messages rather than conversations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, so it's not a perfect 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 description implies usage context by stating it returns conversations with recent activity (last 6 months), suggesting this tool is for getting current/recent conversations rather than historical ones. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation' (for a specific conversation) or 'list_messages' (for messages within conversations), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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