get_conversation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and openWorldHint (true). The description adds value by specifying that the tool retrieves completed conversations and returns conversation details plus full transcript, which is behavioral context beyond the 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 extremely concise at three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what it does, when to use it, and describing the argument. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given low complexity (1 parameter, presence of output schema indicating return structure is documented elsewhere), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter source, and general return content. No gaps remain for this tool.

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 description explains the only parameter (conversation_id) as 'the unique identifier of the conversation to retrieve' and directs the agent to list_conversations to get IDs, adding significant meaning beyond the schema (which only provides title and type).

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 tool 'gets a conversation with transcript', specifying the resource (conversation) and the full transcript. It distinguishes from siblings like list_conversations by referencing it for obtaining IDs, and from get_agent which targets a different resource.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when: analyzing completed agent conversations.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but implies this use case. The mention of list_conversations as a source for IDs provides a clear alternative.

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