get_conversation_by_chat_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'as structured JSON' hints at output format but does not describe error behavior, pagination, or any constraints. For a read-like operation with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant words. It includes a practical hint about obtaining the chat_id without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. It covers the core purpose and provides a source for chat_id, but lacks additional context like whether the response includes message details, attachments, or any limits. Since schema descriptions cover the parameters, the description does not need to repeat them, but it could mention expected output structure or typical use cases. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a fully informed decision.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by clarifying the source for 'chat_id' (from list_chats_structured or find_outreach_followups), which is a practical semantic detail beyond the schema's generic 'The iMessage chat ROWID.' This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Get a conversation by iMessage chat_id as structured JSON.' It specifies the resource (conversation), the identifier (chat_id), and the output format (structured JSON). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on chat_id lookup and even mentions where to obtain the chat_id from, which adds clarity.

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 gives contextual guidance by instructing the agent to 'Use chat_id from list_chats_structured or find_outreach_followups.' This indicates the typical workflow and source for the input parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_conversation' or 'read_recent_messages', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the chat_id source.

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