conversations_view

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool mutates read state, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'Read state' is ambiguous and could imply marking messages as read, which is not clarified.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Information is front-loaded with action and key advice. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, description lacks explanation of 'read state' and the difference between compacted and full responses. For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds minor value by noting detailed=True yields full response, but largely repeats schema content. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no significant additional meaning is added.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a channel view with read state, using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from many sibling conversation tools like conversations_info or conversations_history by mentioning read state, but could be more explicit about what 'view' entails compared to similar tools.

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?

Only guidance is to set detailed=True for full response, which addresses parameter usage but not when to use this tool versus alternatives like conversations_info or conversations_history. No exclusions or context-specific advice provided.

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