conversations_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions fetching history and the 'detailed' parameter, but fails to disclose pagination, rate limits, or whether deleted messages are included.

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 very short with two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a 5 would require being both concise and informative.

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 8 parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output, pagination, or role of parameters like 'cursor' or 'limit', which are critical for usage.

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% for 8 parameters. The description adds meaning only for the 'detailed' parameter, leaving the other 7 parameters (channel, cursor, etc.) completely undocumented.

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 'Fetch a conversation's history' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'conversations_replies' which also fetch history but for replies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only hints at the 'detailed' parameter but does not mention when not to use or suggest sibling tools.

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