users_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description fully relies on itself to disclose behaviors. It only states 'list' (implying read-only) but omits key traits like pagination (cursor, limit), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with missing parameters. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief and could benefit from additional structure, such as listing common use cases or parameter behavior, 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?

Given the tool has six parameters with zero schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what types of conversations are returned, how to paginate, or how this differs from other conversation listing tools. The output schema is not leveraged.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning to the six parameters (cursor, exclude_archived, limit, team_id, types, user). An agent cannot infer how to use these parameters from the description alone.

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') and the resource ('conversations the calling user may access'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'conversations_list' which likely also lists conversations, so some ambiguity remains.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'conversations_list' or 'conversations_info'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, filters, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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