conversations_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the fact that filtering and pagination apply, without disclosing notable behavior such as the default status of 'open' or ordering of results.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of detail rather than being paired with it.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits one behavior an agent would benefit from knowing: that results default to status 'open' and are paginated at 20 per page unless overridden.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, enum and bounds, so the description's generic 'filtros e paginação' adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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 ('Lista conversas') plus the axes of control ('filtros e paginação'), which clearly distinguishes it from conversation_get or messages_list at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer 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?

Mentioning 'filtros e paginação' implies the tool is for browsing/enumerating conversations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not (e.g. use conversation_get for a single thread, or contacts_search when starting from a contact). Guidance is only implied.

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