chatwoot_list_conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds modest behavioral context, such as pagination ('25 per page') and the available filter dimensions, but does not disclose response ordering, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema and output schema already imply.

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 appropriately sized: a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. It is front-loaded and each argument line earns its place by adding enum values or helper-tool references. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but it is not excessive.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description provides enough operational detail for most listing calls. It explains filters, pagination, and helper tools. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing against chatwoot_search_conversations, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool for text-based search.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It compensates well by listing all status and assignee_type enum values, explaining page size, and pointing to sibling tools for resolving inbox_id, team_id, and label. The only weak spot is output_format, which is described only as 'Output format' without adding meaning beyond the schema enum.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Lists conversations with filters by status, assignee, inbox, team, and label.' This is specific and immediately conveys what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling chatwoot_search_conversations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus chatwoot_search_conversations or chatwoot_get_conversation. The references to chatwoot_list_inboxes, chatwoot_list_teams, and chatwoot_list_labels help resolve parameter values, but they do not explain when this listing tool is preferable to alternatives.

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