canvas_list_conversations

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that scope/filter are optional but does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination, ordering, or return format. With the annotation carrying the main safety burden, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 wasted words. It states the primary action and summarizes the parameters efficiently.

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?

With two optional parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description gives a brief overview but omits details like pagination, default scope, or what a returned conversation object looks like. It is minimally viable but lacks full context.

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 description essentially restates the schema: scope enum values are already in the schema, and filter's description already provides the format. Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds little meaning beyond what the schema already gives, so it fails to compensate.

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 lists Canvas inbox conversations with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from canvas_get_conversation by the list vs get aspect, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 mentions optional scope and filter parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as canvas_get_conversation or other list tools. There is no explicit context for when this tool is the right choice.

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