Read Private Conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination at 25 messages per page and the requirement of a logged-in web session. This supplements the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the pagination and session requirements are stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with two parameters, the description covers the key operational facts: how to identify the conversation, pagination behavior, and authentication requirement. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description clearly says it reads messages, so an agent can infer the return content. Minor missing details like ordering are not essential.

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 for parameter meaning. It clearly explains conversation_id as 'id from pm_list,' which is helpful. However, the page parameter is only indirectly implied by '25 per page' and is not explicitly described as the page number to request. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Read the messages of a private conversation.' It also references pm_list for obtaining the conversation id, which distinguishes this tool from pm_send, pm_reply, pm_leave, and pm_list. The title 'Read Private Conversation' reinforces the same resource without ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context by specifying that it reads a private conversation and that the conversation id comes from pm_list. It also states the requirement of a logged-in web session. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or directly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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