conversation_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: the transcript is complete and not truncated. However, it omits other behavioral context such as the effect of only_len, pagination, or error/permission behavior.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The '§3.15' reference is cryptic and adds little for an AI agent, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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?

Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the description does not compensate for the 0% parameter schema coverage and does not position the tool among its siblings. An agent would struggle to know when to call this versus conversation_search or conversation_import, and it cannot infer the semantics of only_len.

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 parameters id and only_len are completely undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain either parameter or how only_len interacts with the 'sin truncar' guarantee, leaving the agent unable to understand the meaning of only_len=true.

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 conveys that the tool returns a complete conversation transcript and explicitly adds the 'sin truncar' qualifier, which helps distinguish it from truncated or summary-style retrieval. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than using an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets.'

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention conversation_search, conversation_import, or any condition for choosing this tool over them; 'sin truncar' only weakly implies the use case of needing a full transcript.

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