list_convos

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor describe pagination behavior beyond what is in the schema (limit/offset), ordering, or data freshness. The description is too minimal to give an agent sufficient understanding of side effects or constraints.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function and filters; the second provides helpful context about the unified inbox system. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Despite high parameter coverage, the description lacks essential information such as the structure of a conversation object, pagination details beyond schema, and any response format hints. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter's purpose is already documented in the input schema. The tool description merely repeats the filter categories without adding semantic detail (e.g., format constraints, default behavior, or interaction between parameters). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource 'inbox conversations', and enumerates specific filter options (state, mailbox, label, screener status, full-text search). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_actions, list_contacts) which operate on different resources.

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 listing filter capabilities, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_convo (single conversation) or list_messages (messages within conversations). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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