Ler conversa

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description flags a non-obvious side effect: unread conversations are re-marked unread after reading unless keepUnread is false. It also discloses what is returned (ordered messages, 24h window, attachment metadata), which goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing pagination limits beyond loadMoreTimes or error behavior for unknown contacts.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The return contents are front-loaded, the unread quirk follows, and the conversation_id hand-off to write tools closes it — every sentence carries useful 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does: ordered messages, inbound/outbound labels, the 24h response window, attachment metadata, and conversation_id. Missing is any note on behavior when neither index nor contact resolves, or how much history is returned by default — minor gaps for a read tool whose safety profile is already covered.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including keepUnread's default and loadMoreTimes' role. The description adds only the inbound/outbound message semantics, restating the keepUnread behavior the schema already explains; contact/index selection and history-loading behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return the messages of one conversation in order') and clarifies the inbound/outbound labeling plus the 24h window and attachment metadata. It implicitly separates itself from list/search siblings by saying 'one conversation', but it never names those siblings explicitly, leaving some disambiguation work to the agent.

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 gives downstream routing ('Returns conversation_id: pass it to write tools') and notes that index comes from aspa_list_conversations, which implies the read-then-write flow. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over aspa_search_conversation or aspa_list_conversations, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's index note.

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