List Conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the recency sort order, merged group/DM listing, last-message previews, member counts, and the fact that each entry carries the ids other tools need.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the routing rationale. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 safety profile, the description is nearly complete; it even sketches the return shape. Missing only pagination/truncation behavior given the 1-100 limit parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 'kind', 'limit', and 'response_format' are already fully documented with defaults and enums. The description adds no param-level meaning (e.g., no guidance on which kind to pick), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's GroupMe conversations') plus the ordering ('most recently active first') and scope ('merges groups and direct-message chats into one recency-sorted list'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search_messages or read_messages immediately.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first, whenever you need to find a conversation or the ids the other tools take,' naming the downstream consumers (read_messages, get_conversation_context). This gives a clear when-to-use condition and routes the agent to the correct entry point.

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