get_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining pagination mechanics (cursor-based with before_rowid/after_rowid) and the purpose of pagination ('for scrolling through history' and 'for catching up on new messages'), though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains pagination mechanics. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and pagination behavior, but lacks details on error cases, response format, or how parameters like 'contact' and 'chat_id' interact, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning pagination support and context for before_rowid/after_rowid, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already specifies, such as parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 with specific verbs ('Get a full conversation thread') and resources ('with a specific contact or chat'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_thread' or 'search_messages' by emphasizing full thread retrieval with pagination support.

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 clear context for usage ('Supports cursor-based pagination... for scrolling through history'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_thread' or 'search_messages', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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