list_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns conversations with status, priority, unread counts, and pagination,' which adds some context about output and pagination behavior. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It consists of two sentences that efficiently cover listing, filtering, and return details without unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured to separate return values from behavioral aspects, but overall it's well-sized and avoids waste.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and return fields but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and sibling tool differentiation. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on permissions, rate limits, and response structure would improve completeness for a listing tool with multiple filters.

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 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all 9 parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filters' and hinting at the return fields, but it doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'List conversations with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('conversations'), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversation' (which likely retrieves a single conversation) or 'update_conversation' (which modifies conversations), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_conversation' for single conversations or 'get_active_users' for user data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through the action of listing with filters, but explicit context is lacking.

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