List conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: required scopes (conversations:read, luca:read), full_content data sensitivity, that idempotency isn't required, and the workspace override. It does not, however, describe pagination/truncation behavior at the tool level.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by compact metadata lines. Every line is short and mostly earns its place, though the operation/scope/idempotency lines have a boilerplate feel.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. Combined with annotations and the schema's own maxPages description, the definition covers purpose, auth scopes, data sensitivity, and workspace scoping adequately; only richer when-to-use guidance is missing.

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 75%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description adds the workspace override semantics for workspaceId/workspaceSlug. It names only some query fields (limit, cursor, channel, q) and omits channelAccountId, externalAccountId, and maxPages, so it adds moderate rather than full value.

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+resource (list conversations) with scope (recent) and the underlying operation GET /api/conversations. It clearly reads as a collection-listing tool distinct from luca_conversations_get, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and 'List recent conversations', and it notes the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override for the default workspace. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. luca_conversations_get for a single conversation or luca_conversations_messages for messages), leaving routing to inference.

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