conversations_info

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 states a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or return value structure. The output schema exists but the description does not reference or summarize it.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified—it could benefit from a few more sentences explaining scope and parameters without becoming verbose.

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?

With 3 parameters (1 required), no output description, and no usage context, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema is not used to inform the agent. The tool needs more detail to be usable among many similar siblings.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (channel, include_locale, include_num_members) are explained in the description. The description adds zero value over the schema regarding parameter semantics.

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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('information about a conversation'), indicating a read operation. However, 'information' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like conversations_history or conversations_members, which also retrieve specific types of conversation data.

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 many sibling conversation tools (e.g., conversations_history, conversations_members, conversations_info), the description should clarify that this tool retrieves basic metadata (like channel name, topic, purpose) rather than history or members.

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