list_convos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing with filters) but omits details like default sorting order, rate limits, or whether deleted conversations are excluded. The mention of 'unified inbox' adds context but is not directly behavioral.

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 cover the main purpose. The first sentence front-loads the action and filters. However, the second sentence about 'Send16's unified inbox' is slightly vague and could be replaced with more concrete behavior (e.g., pagination details).

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., conversation IDs, subjects, timestamps). Pagination parameters (limit, offset) are in schema but not described in terms of behavior (e.g., 'returns results in reverse chronological order'). For a listing tool, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The tool description merely echoes the filter options without adding extra semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters well.

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 tool's purpose: 'List inbox conversations' with explicit filtering options (state, mailbox, label, screener status, full-text search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_convo (single conversation) and list_messages (messages within conversations).

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 provides basic use cases (listing with filters) but lacks guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., search_contacts, list_inbox_counts) or when not to use this tool. No mention of pagination behavior or prerequisites.

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