get_conversation_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the transcript-vs-summary threshold and the requirement to use conversationId from recall_chat_history. It does not mention any potential side effects or permissions, but as a read operation, the description adequately conveys its safe nature.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a single-parameter tool. It explains both possible response types (transcript or summary) and the source of the required ID. The main gap is lacking a description of the response structure, but this is not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 covers the parameter completely with a description matching the tool description. The description adds no new meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3. No ambiguity exists about the parameter's purpose or source.

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 details of a specific past conversation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the length-based behavior (full transcript vs AI summary) and explicitly references recall_chat_history as the source of the ID.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user wants to dive deeper into a conversation returned by recall_chat_history.' It also clarifies the conditional behavior based on token count. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_full_conversation, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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