List conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides one behavioral detail: conversations are ordered by most recent message. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, search behavior, return shape, or any side effects. For a list operation, this is thinner than the safety-critical information the tool.

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 with no filler, which makes it concise and easy to parse. It does not devote space to unnecessary explanations. However, the conciseness crosses into under-specification—the sentence is too short to cover the tool's important parameter and behavioral details.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide all usage context. It does not explain return values, the search filter's behavior, pagination defaults, or any execution context. An agent cannot build a correct invocation from this description and the bare schema alone.

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?

All three parameters (search, pageSize, pageNumber) have zero schema descriptions, and the tool description mentions none of them. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema, and since schema_description_coverage is 0%, this is a critical gap—the agent has no way to understand what 'search' filters, default page size, or how pagination works.

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), resource (conversations), and even clarifies that conversations are contacts. It also specifies ordering by most recent message, which helps differentiate it from the broad set of sibling list tools. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related tools like gambot_get_conversation_messages by name, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to use the search parameter, or how pagination should be handled. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use context from the tool name. Many siblings exist, but none are referenced as alternatives.

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