get_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action and one filter, without mentioning pagination, result limits, required client_slug, or any other behavioral caveats.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and one useful filter. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 list endpoint with six parameters and no output schema, the description is serviceable but incomplete: it doesn't surface pagination, the entity_type/entity_id combination, or the requirement of client_slug. The schema helps, but the description alone would leave an agent uncertain about pagination and filtering options.

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 covers 4 of 6 parameters with descriptions, leaving page, limit, and entity_type/entity_id relationship mostly to inference. The description only rephrases contact_id filtering already present in the schema, adding little semantic value beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('lista de conversas (Talks) na Kommo'), and names the contact_id filtering capability. It clearly identifies what the tool does and is the only tool among siblings dealing with conversations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 indicates a clear use case (fetch conversations, optionally filtered by a client), but it doesn't state when to prefer this over other tools or any exclusions. With no conversation-specific sibling tool, the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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