conversation_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond it: conversations are 'shared' and results are metadata-only by default, with the detail flag enabling richer output. This is meaningful context not captured in annotations.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the action, states the resource scope, and declares the parameter-dependent behavior. There is no filler or repeated schema information.

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 simple, optional-parameter list tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it operates on, and how the detail parameter changes behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explain the parameter, and it does: 'detail:true' changes the result from metadata-only to more detailed. While it does not enumerate every possible value, for a single boolean parameter this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List shared conversations', and immediately adds the conditional behavior 'metadata only unless detail:true'. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like conversation_read and conversation_create at the collection level.

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 this is the tool for listing conversations rather than reading a single one, and the 'unless detail:true' clause hints at when the detail parameter matters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over conversation_read or any other alternative, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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