list_conversations

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

Describes output fields (unread counts, last message preview, name) but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; reveals typical behavior for a list tool but lacks full transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Highly efficient and clear.

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 list tool without output schema, the description adequately summarizes the response structure (unread counts, last message preview, name). Missing details on pagination or ordering, but sufficient for basic understanding given the tool's simplicity and good annotations coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'limit' described. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's description (which includes default 20). No elaboration on format or constraints, so score is baseline 3.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'LINE conversations' (chats, groups, rooms), and distinguishes by listing specific returned fields (unread counts, last message preview, human-readable name). Differentiates from sibling tools like list_contacts and get_chat_messages.

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?

Implies usage for getting an overview of all conversations with key details. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, but the purpose is straightforward and the context of sibling tools makes it clear. Lacks explicit exclusions or fallback guidance.

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