conversations_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, whether pagination is involved, or how errors (e.g., missing channel) are handled. The schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded with the action and object. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or paragraphs to organize information. It is efficient but could benefit from a brief elaboration. Still, every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'history' entails (e.g., pagination, time filtering, threading). For a complex tool with many siblings and parameters, the description should provide more context to ensure correct invocation.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the structured data does the job.

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 'Fetch a conversation's history' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (conversation's history). It distinguishes from siblings like conversations_info (general info) and conversations_replies (thread replies) by implying a chronological list of messages. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., 'all messages in a channel') which would elevate clarity.

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. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., conversations_info, conversations_list), the description should indicate that this is for retrieving message history, not metadata or members. Without such context, agents may misuse the tool.

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