list_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses the return structure (dict with total_found, returned, conversations) and fields (id, platform, status, created_at). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects. For a list tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, API endpoint, and return structure. It is concise with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose immediately informs the agent.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage flow (browse then drill down), API details, and return structure. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with one optional parameter (max_results) described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format or default behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter.

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: '取得客服對話列表' (get customer service conversation list). It explains that it provides a summary list of all conversations for browsing current/historical status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_conversation_messages by noting that this tool is for browsing summaries, while the sibling retrieves full message details.

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 states when to use this tool: to browse the summary list of conversations and screen which conversations to retrieve details from. It names the alternative tool (get_conversation_messages) for full messages. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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