list_conversations

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) as it describes a list operation. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation—such as whether the tool returns only metadata or full objects, or any performance implications. The annotation already covers the safety profile, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a structured list of parameters. It is appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the parameter comments could be more concise (e.g., 'Include participant info' could be 'Include participants'). No wasted sentences.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a list tool. It covers input parameters but lacks any mention of output behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering). With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description could be more complete, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists parameter names and one-line labels (e.g., 'scope: unread, starred...'), but lacks detailed semantics: what does filter_mode 'and' vs 'or' actually do? How does include_all_ids differ from include_participants? The defaults are given but not explained. This provides minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 lists conversations for the current user, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_conversation or get_conversation_details by being a list operation, and the parameter list further clarifies its scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conversation_details or mark_conversations_read. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when to avoid using it. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other conversation tools.

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