get_conversation

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals a key behavioral trait: it automatically marks messages as read in the local store but does not send a read receipt. This adds value beyond what the input schema provides.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides a critical behavioral note. No extraneous 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?

The description covers the main purpose and a key behavior. It does not mention the return format or ordering, but the parameters are well-documented in the schema. Slightly more detail could improve completeness, but it is 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 retrieves recent message history from the local store, specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'message history', and scope 'with a contact or group'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'send_read_receipt' by explicitly noting that it does not send a Signal read receipt.

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 includes a clear alternative: 'call send_read_receipt for that' if a read receipt is needed. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other message retrieval tools like 'receive_messages', 'export_messages', or 'get_unread'.

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