List Conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only adds the authenticated-user scope and the 'inbox messages' clarification. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or conversation-state behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the resource definition, and the user scope.

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 zero-parameter listing tool backed by clear annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. It does not need to explain return values or pagination given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because no semantic gap exists.

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 identifies the verb and resource: 'List conversations (inbox messages) for the authenticated user.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_conversation and send_conversation by framing it as a listing operation scoped to the user's own inbox.

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 implies the tool should be used when you want the authenticated user's inbox conversations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_conversation or get_conversation_unread_count. The scope is clear, but no direct comparison or exclusion guidance is provided.

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