searchatlas_list_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing and optional filtering, but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error cases). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List conversation sessions') and adds a useful qualifier ('optionally filtered by agent'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, search functionality), output format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture for an 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning optional filtering by agent, which loosely relates to 'agent_namespace', but doesn't provide additional semantics, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'conversation sessions', making the purpose evident. It also mentions optional filtering by agent, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchatlas_list_artifacts' or 'searchatlas_list_playbooks', which also list resources, 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 implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by agent, suggesting it's for retrieving conversations, possibly in a search or monitoring scenario. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to other list tools or search functions), and there's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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