plu_get_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., marking as read), permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the parameter hint. The description is minimal and lacks transparency.

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 extremely concise—two brief sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, some detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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's simplicity (list with filters), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks any mention of the return format, ordering, or how the output relates to sibling tools like 'plu_get_messages'. More context would improve agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (page and filter), and the tool description adds value by enumerating possible filter values. However, it does not explain the effect of each filter, leaving interpretation to the agent.

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 'Get conversation list' with a verb and resource. It lists specific filters ('unread', 'exchanges', etc.), which helps distinguish from other list tools. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., user's conversations) and could further differentiate from sibling 'plu_get_messages'.

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 like 'plu_get_messages' or 'plu_get_exchanges'. There are no cues about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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