get_conversation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Read' indicating read-only nature but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or output structure beyond 'all messages'. More transparency needed.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading purpose and then adding a clear usage note. No redundant information.

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 read tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. It could mention output pagination or limits, but overall sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates by explaining school_id is from list_conversations and chat_id is from its results. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 'integer' type and parameter names.

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 'Read a specific message conversation thread with all messages.' It specifies the verb (Read) and resource (specific conversation), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_conversations which lists 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 includes an 'IMPORTANT' note that both school_id and chat_id are required, and explains that school_id is from list_conversations and chat_id from its results. This provides context on when to use this tool (after listing conversations) but does not explicitly state 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.