get_conversation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which is the non-obvious part here. The description explains the side effect well (incoming messages marked read in the local store only, no receipt sent) and that no server call is made. However the marking-read behavior IS the reason readOnlyHint is false, so the description mostly elaborates a trait the annotations already signal, keeping this at a solid 3.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (alternatives, params, side effect, return shape). It is dense and reads as a single packed block, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (messages, total, has_more, limit, offset) and even timestamp/id semantics. Combined with full param and side-effect coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: recipient accepts E.164 or group_id, offset is described as 'skip the newest N for paging back', and since notes invalid values return an error. These add semantics beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read the message history of one conversation') with clear scope ('from the local store, no Signal server call'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_conversations, search_messages, and get_unread, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names three alternative siblings with the exact condition that selects each (find conversations vs. search across chats vs. only unread). It also documents when to use send_read_receipt instead of relying on this tool for read receipts.

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