List Chatwoot Conversations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly mentions pagination support, the output format options (markdown/json), and details of the return content. This provides a richer picture of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loaded with the primary Purpose. While it is longer than the minimal two-sentence example, every section adds necessary information for a tool with five parameters and no output schema. The use of bullet-style lists keeps it scannable and avoids unnecessary prose.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return fields, provides examples for common use cases, and documents defaults. It does not, however, address potential edge cases like empty results, error conditions, or rate limits, which would require additional context. Given the moderate complexity and full parameter schema, this is a solid but not perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter semantics by explaining defaults (page: 1, status: 'open', response_format: 'markdown'), enumerating allowed values for status and assignee_type, and providing concrete examples of parameter combinations. These additions go beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'conversations', clearly stating the tool retrieves conversations with filtering options. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'chatwoot_filter_conversations', which appears to have overlapping purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 examples of parameter usage but no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'chatwoot_filter_conversations' or 'chatwoot_list_messages'. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded, leaving the selection decision to the agent without explicit direction.

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