conversation_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the response includes the full history of all user and assistant turns, which is helpful. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, potential ordering, pagination, or error behavior for invalid IDs. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes relevant scope details. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states exactly what the tool returns (full message history with all user and assistant turns). It lacks detail on return format or pagination, but given the low complexity, the completeness is good.

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 schema description for conversation_id is 100% descriptive ('The integer ID of the conversation (from conversation_list)'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the 'specific conversation' aspect. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full message history of a specific AION conversation', and the scope 'including all user and assistant turns.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like conversation_list (which lists conversations) and conversation_search (which searches conversations).

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 implies usage after obtaining a conversation_id, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools such as conversation_list for obtaining IDs. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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