list_conversations

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral context. It discloses that the tool lists threads and lists optional filtering and pagination parameters, but it doesn't mention any side effects (e.g., no mutation) or output format. The description is neutral and does not contradict anything, but lacks depth.

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, short sentence that states the main purpose and lists optional parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It could be slightly improved by separating the parameter list into a second sentence, but overall it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool is moderate in complexity with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain return value details (e.g., the structure of conversations) or pagination semantics beyond naming the cursor parameter. Given the low complexity and that the schema covers parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps in behavioral context and return format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (did, limit, cursor, unread_only) is described. The description merely names the optional parameters without adding detail that the schema doesn't already provide. Thus, the description adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('conversation threads'), and the scope ('for an SMS DID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_messages (which likely lists individual messages) and list_sms_dids (which lists DIDs), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'for an SMS DID' and the optional parameters hint at when to use it, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar list tools. It implies context but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions.

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