get_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it loads raw turns, offering no information about side effects, error behavior, data volume, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description gives a clear purpose and usage context, and the output schema covers return values. However, it does not fully explain the parameters, especially 'turn', and lacks details about potential edge cases. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but has clear gaps in parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'session_id' via 'past session' but does not explain the 'turn' parameter at all. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the optional 'turn' parameter ambiguous.

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 action ('Load') and the resource ('raw conversation turns from a past session'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like recall or remember. It also differentiates itself by referencing 'raw' context, implying it provides more detail than recalled memories.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when a recalled memory lacks detail and you need the original context.' This implies when the recall tool is insufficient and gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or state exclusion conditions.

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