List conversations

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is set. The description adds the network-availability constraint, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error behavior for unsupported networks, so the added value is moderate.

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 three concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The supported/unsupported network lists are split into two sentences, which is slightly repetitive but still efficient and readable.

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 values are covered elsewhere. The description explains high-level behavior and network constraints, but it omits pagination semantics and error behavior for unsupported networks. Given the annotations and schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 50% – limit and offset have no descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters or how they affect results, so half the parameters remain semantically underdocumented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 identifies the tool's function: listing private conversations for one account, including who it's with, last write time, and unread counts. It also scopes supported networks, which aids differentiation from message-level tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_messages.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance by listing networks that do not support chat. It also implies when to use it (needing conversation-level unread info for a specific account), but it does not reference alternative tools directly, so the routing is context-rich but not fully explicit.

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