List conversations

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

The description only restates the tool name ('List talks/conversations') and adds the scope 'in the account'; it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint true), such as pagination or filtering behavior.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words; it is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to read.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how to use filters or what the response contains; it is too minimal for effective use beyond a simple list call.

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?

The description contains no parameter information, and the schema has 0% description coverage; thus the agent must infer from parameter names alone (page, limit, filter_*) without knowing valid values or semantics, making it impossible to use filters correctly.

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 states 'List talks/conversations in the account' with a clear verb and resource, and the scope 'in the account' distinguishes it from conversation-specific operations like get or messages_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify whether 'talks' and 'conversations' are synonymous.

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 the various siblings; there is no mention of filtering, pagination, or why one would choose this over kommo_conversations_get or kommo_conversations_messages_list.

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