list_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the ordering behavior (newest first), but omits key behaviors such as pagination via cursor, filtering by status/label/mailbox, and any authentication requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with six optional parameters.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action and ordering. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, though conciseness itself is well-handled relative to the minimal content.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description is incomplete given the tool's complexity. It does not mention the filtering capabilities, pagination mechanisms, or authentication requirements, and provides no context to distinguish it from sibling tools. For a list operation with six optional parameters, this is inadequate.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema field names. The description fails to explain what limit, cursor, status, label_id, api_token, or mailbox_id control, leaving the agent to infer their purposes without guidance.

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 primary function: listing conversations, and adds a specific ordering detail ('newest activity first'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_conversations' or 'get_conversation', which also deal with conversation retrieval, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_conversations'. The description gives no context about its intended use case, exclusions, or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without any situational advice.

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