get_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that only active threads are returned and that the payload includes participant IDs and unread counts, which is useful scope information. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior tied to limit, or permissions required, so the read-side behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned data appended. No padding, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return shape, which it partly does. It omits ordering, what 'active' means, and how this relates to get_conversation_messages, leaving meaningful gaps for a slight 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics about what limit counts or whether threads are ordered.

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 and resource ('Fetch active Instagram direct message conversations/threads') and lists what comes back (participant IDs, unread counts). It is clear on its own, but never names or contrasts with the close sibling get_conversation_messages, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'active' and by the phrase 'conversations/threads'; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_conversation_messages or the send_instagram_dm family. The alternative is inferable from the sibling list but not from the description itself.

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