List conversations

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

'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true, so it earns no credit. It does add ordering information ('most recently active first') and the returned counts, which are useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the openWorldHint implication.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the granularity, ordering and payload are all packed in without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return shape (threads, activity ordering, message and unread counts) and the annotations carry the safety profile. The main remaining gap is offset/pagination behavior, which neither schema nor description explains.

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 only 50%: limit is documented in the schema, but offset is left bare and the description adds no semantics for either. The description supplies no paging guidance, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List message threads') and clarifies the granularity ('one per pair of numbers and channel') plus ordering and contents. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling tools (list_messages, get_conversation_messages) it must be distinguished from.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative named among the many listing siblings (list_messages, list_broadcasts, get_conversation_messages). Usage is only implied by the fact that it is a list operation.

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