get_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads a conversation thread with all messages, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. The description is accurate and adds some behavioral context (returns all messages in the thread), but lacks depth.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The IMPORTANT note and Args section are clearly structured. It could be slightly more compact, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying required parameters and their provenance.

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 the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential context: what it reads, that both parameters are required, and where to get the parameter values. It doesn't mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a simple read operation with an output schema, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that school_id is the same one used in list_conversations and chat_id comes from list_conversations results. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types (integer) and clarifies the relationship between parameters and the sibling tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a specific message conversation thread with all messages'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_conversations (which lists conversations) and get_post (which reads a post). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action and resource are clear enough to differentiate.

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 provides clear context: it reads a specific conversation thread, and it explicitly notes that both school_id and chat_id are required, referencing list_conversations as the source of these IDs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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