List community conversations

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the ordering (newest first), the payload shape (last message plus participant names), and the auth requirement (community token with the messages right).

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: scope and ordering first, then the filter use case, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers ordering, entry contents, the key filter, and the token scope required. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving the "unread" filter a concrete purpose (what is waiting for a reply), which the bare enum cannot convey. count and offset are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list conversations in the community inbox) plus what each entry contains and the ordering (newest first). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, vk_messages_get_history, which retrieves messages inside a single conversation.

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?

Provides one concrete usage cue — use filter "unread" to see what is waiting for a reply — which is genuinely helpful. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over vk_messages_get_history or vk_messages_mark_as_read, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token note.

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