get_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission requirement, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of conversations with metadata). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (a read operation with parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and a key permission requirement but misses details on behavior (e.g., output structure, error cases) and doesn't leverage the lack of annotations to fully compensate. It's adequate but has clear 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (page_id and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how auto-detection works for page_id or typical use cases for limit. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('Instagram DM conversations'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversation_messages' or 'send_dm', but the focus on conversations rather than individual messages or sending is reasonably distinct.

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?

The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires instagram_manage_messages permission'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_conversation_messages' or 'send_dm', leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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