get_plugin_chat_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states it retrieves 'closed conversations', which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, destructive potential, or pagination behavior beyond the schema parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. It conveys the core purpose efficiently without redundancy. Slightly more structure could improve clarity, but it is concise.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential context: the resource (closed plugin conversations), the key identifier (phone), and a use case. It is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context ('para un teléfono específico') but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves closed conversations from the web chat plugin for a specific phone, with a verb ('Ver') and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_chat_sessions' or 'get_plugin_conversations', though specifying 'plugin' and 'closed' provides some distinction.

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 provides a clear use case ('Útil cuando un agente quiere ver qué ha preguntado un cliente por el chat de la web') but does not include explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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