mc_listConversations

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It only states 'List conversations' with no mention of pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned. The parameters (count, offset) hint at pagination, but the description fails to confirm this or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise at two words, which is suitable for a straightforward tool. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could include a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format (likely a list of conversation objects) or pagination details. The schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks context on how to use the tool effectively, such as default behavior or required permissions.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as usage examples or expected value formats. For a tool with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra value.

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 'List conversations' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (conversations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mc_getConversation' which fetches a single conversation. However, it could be improved by indicating that it can filter by audience or unread status, as implied by the parameters.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mc_listConversationMessages' (lists messages in a conversation) or 'mc_getConversation' (gets a specific conversation). An agent would not know the appropriate context for each.

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