Get conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error conditions, rate limits, or auth requirements. It merely restates the action without disclosing anything beyond 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 a single concise sentence of seven words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no fluff. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices useful context, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with a single parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not state what is returned or how errors are signaled, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', but that merely echoes the parameter name 'id' and does not explain the ID's origin, format, or any constraints. The description adds little semantic value over 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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('conversation/talk') with an explicit scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_conversations_list (which lists multiple) and kommo_conversations_close (which mutates state).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention, for example, using kommo_conversations_list to find an ID first, nor does it state any prerequisites beyond the ID parameter already visible in the schema.

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