coeus_list_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List'), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., conversation IDs, titles, timestamps), whether the list is ephemeral, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have side effects or specific output expectations.

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 phrase with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it is brief, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity contributes to incompleteness elsewhere.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should compensate by indicating what the response contains. It does not mention return fields, what 'active' means, or whether results are sorted or paginated. The agent is left with minimal guidance on how to interpret the output, making this incomplete for even a simple listing tool.

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% because the single parameter 'limit' has a description ('Limit'), but that description is vague and does not clarify the meaning (e.g., maximum number of results, pagination). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies, but it does not enhance the semantics.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('active in-memory conversations'), which clearly distinguishes it from conversation-related siblings like coeus_start_conversation, coeus_continue_conversation, and coeus_clear_conversation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 (if you want to see active conversations, call this tool), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple listing operation, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it.

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