recent_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, that only ID/title/time are returned, that full messages are not loaded, and that returned content is untrusted data (with an instruction-following warning). It could mention pagination or sorting behavior, but for a simple list tool this is strong.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains return scope, third gives limit details, fourth provides a security warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: return fields, read-only nature, limit constraints, and trust warning. It does not mention offset or result ordering, but for a recent-conversations list with a small parameter set, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'limit' by stating the default and max, but it does not mention 'offset' at all. Given only two parameters, the omission of offset is a notable gap, leaving the description only partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List the recent conversations of the current assistant (read-only)' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the scope ('current assistant', 'recent') and that it only returns IDs, titles, and times, which distinguishes it from search and context 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for listing recent conversations of the current assistant without loading full messages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only and lightweight nature implicitly guides usage away from search or full-context retrieval.

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