get_va_conversation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe, idempotent read behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, or side effects) beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function. No wasted words, front-loads the core idea.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, extensive annotations), the description is largely complete. However, it could mention return format or pagination behavior, though the limit parameter implies partial results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose without explaining parameter usage beyond what the schema already defines.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get conversation history for a Virtual Agent session'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('conversation history'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_va_conversations' which lists conversations rather than retrieving history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While it's implied that this tool retrieves history for a specific conversation versus listing all conversations, the description does not state when to choose this tool over similar ones like 'get_va_topic' or 'list_va_conversations'.

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