conversation_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is returned (titles, tool types, summaries) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how 'recent' is defined, or any side effects. For a simple list tool this is minimal, and it does not disclose ordering or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 that efficiently states the purpose and key output details. There is no redundancy or fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 straightforward list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the resource, the recency qualifier, and the output contents. It could elaborate on the return structure or edge cases, but given the low complexity and schema coverage, it is nearly complete.

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 100%, with both parameters (tool and limit) already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameters; the mention of tool types in the output is tangential to the tool filter parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List' and identifies the resource 'recent AION conversations', with concrete output details (titles, tool types, auto-generated summaries). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like conversation_get (which likely retrieves one) and conversation_search (which likely searches).

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 states what the tool does, implying it's for listing recent conversations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like conversation_search or conversation_get. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the usage context is only implicitly derived from the tool's purpose.

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