List Recent Conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context by stating the data source ('from the index') and the sorting order ('by modification time'), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 conveys the core function efficiently with no filler or redundant content.

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?

While the description states the basic purpose, it omits parameter semantics and fails to clarify usage relative to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema helps, but input parameters are undocumented, making the description insufficient for nuanced use cases like filtering by project.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (limit, project, response_format). An agent cannot infer the meaning of 'project' or 'response_format' from either the schema or the description, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 clear verb ('List') and specifies the resource ('recent Claude conversations from the index') plus ordering ('sorted by modification time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search/get, which perform different operations.

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 the tool is for viewing recent conversations but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools such as cowork_history_search or cowork_history_get. There are no exclusions or alternative references.

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