List conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic list/filter behavior and fails to mention pagination, response shape, or any operational details beyond the obvious reading of the tool name.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the core scope and optional filters without redundancy, earning its place fully.

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 is minimal for a paged list endpoint with no output schema. It omits pagination semantics, return format details, and enough contextual guidance to fully cover the tool's behavior.

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 only 25%, with bot_id described in the schema and status exposed via enum. The description adds the optionality and combination of bot_id/status but does not help with page or per_page parameters, leaving significant parameter semantics unexplained.

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 ('List conversations'), the resource ('conversations'), and the workspace scope. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools by resource type and mentions optional filters, making its purpose specific and identifiable.

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 gives clear context for use: listing workspace conversations with optional bot_id/status filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_conversation for single conversations, but the behavior and scope are clear enough to imply the appropriate use case.

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