get_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local read-marks and absence of read receipt. However, it omits details like return order (newest first?), whether messages are fetched only from local store without network, or pagination behavior. These are inferred but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence defines purpose and scope, second sentence adds a critical behavioral caveat. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 4 parameters with pagination and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context (local store, read-marking, no receipt). It lacks explicit ordering (newest first) but 'recent' implies it. Sufficient for a list-retrieval 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond schema by stating the tool retrieves 'recent message history' and automatically marks as read, providing context not in the schema. This extra value justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'recent message history', and the scope 'with a contact or group from local store'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'receive_messages' (server fetch) and 'export_messages' (different purpose).

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 explicitly notes that returned messages are marked as read locally but does NOT send a Signal read receipt, directing users to call 'send_read_receipt' when a receipt is needed. This provides clear context for when to use the tool and when an alternative is required, though it doesn't mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for server messages).

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