conversations_list

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. It implies listing 'all channels' without clarifying scope or limitations.

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 (two brief sentences) but lacks essential information. It is concise but under-specified.

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 the 6 parameters, no annotations, and presence of many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not address parameter defaults, relationships, or output details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions the 'detailed' parameter. It adds meaning for that one parameter but ignores cursor, exclude_archived, limit, team_id, and types.

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 action ('List all channels') and mentions the 'detailed' parameter. However, it is slightly misleading as 'channels' may be narrower than the tool's actual scope (conversations can include multiple types).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like conversations_list_connect_invites or conversations_list_prefs. The only hint is about the 'detailed' parameter, not about selection criteria.

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