Get Conversation Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'full content' suggests a complete payload), but it does not disclose anything else like pagination or rate limits. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant wording; every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete in conveying core behavior. However, it lacks guidance on optional parameters and does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools. Still, the presence of output schema and annotations reduces the burden, making this adequate.

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 only mentions the primary parameter 'session ID' but leaves response_format, include_thinking, and include_tool_calls without explanation. The schema provides enum/default values, but the description does not help an agent decide among the optional parameters.

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 'Get full content of a specific conversation by session ID,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cowork_history_list and cowork_history_search by emphasizing 'specific conversation' and 'full content.'

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 use when you have a session ID and want full conversation content, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No exclusions or separate guidance is provided, leaving the usage inference to the agent.

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