skool_list_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', disclosing that this operation has no side effects. It also lists the output contents (channel_id, unread count, preview), giving the agent a sense of what to expect. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a list operation the key safety trait (read-only) is covered.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the usage hint about get_conversation is placed after the primary info. Structure is clean and efficient.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (fields), the scope (DM inbox), safety (read-only), and the natural next step. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further ambiguity.

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 schema has only one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention limit at all. While 'limit' is a common parameter, the description fails to explain its effect (e.g., max number of conversations to return, default 30). Since the description is the only place to compensate for the missing schema documentation, this is a notable gap.

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 resource ('DM inbox') and the action (list conversations), and specifies the fields returned (channel_id, unread count, last-message preview). It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_conversation by directing the reader to use it for reading a specific conversation. This is a precise, non-redundant 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 tells the agent to use a returned channel_id with skool_get_conversation for follow-up, which implies this tool is for browsing the inbox before drilling into a conversation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the pointer to the sibling tool provides clear context. Given the number of siblings and the clear naming, this is adequate.

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