Get conversation

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: 'Opening a conversation this way marks nothing read.' It also characterizes the response contents (participants, latest messages with sender, text and time, in chat-window order), which annotations alone cannot convey.

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 sentences, return semantics first, then the read-state caveat. 'Oldest first' appears in both sentences, a minor redundancy that keeps it just short of a 5.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return payload and ordering, and it covers the one subtle side effect. It omits how many messages 'latest' means and whether more can be paged, a small gap for a tool that returns a windowed message list.

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% and the single conversation_id parameter is documented there, including a pointer to list_conversations. The description adds no further parameter meaning such as ID format or behavior when the ID is unknown, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'The latest messages of one direct-message conversation, oldest first.' That is enough to distinguish it from list_conversations, which enumerates conversations rather than fetching one conversation's messages, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the noun phrase 'one direct-message conversation' and by the pointer to list_conversations in the schema, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives or exclusions.

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