Get agent conversations

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: results are ordered most-recent-first, paging uses hasMore/nextBefore, Studio sessions match what the user sees on wiro.ai while Workflow Agent sessions are scoped to this API key's project, and team agents with private chats may not surface every member's late results. It also warns that Wiro voice call records arrive without caller details or transcripts while agent-written reports come through as written — non-obvious data-shape caveats an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 dual-mode behavior and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It runs long, and a few clauses (the closing "Read-only." which merely restates the annotations, plus the mediaUrls/link-formatting aside) could be trimmed without loss.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description nonetheless covers the scoping caveats, pagination protocol, and cross-surface differences an agent needs to invoke this correctly. Nothing material is missing for a 4-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics on top: the presence/absence of `session` is framed as the mode switch, and the `before` parameter's contract is grounded in a concrete paging flow (pass nextBefore from the previous page). It does not add anything about `limit` beyond the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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 opens with an explicit two-mode split: "Without session: list your conversations (sessions)... With session: read that conversation." A specific verb+resource pair is given for each mode, and the agent can tell immediately which sibling operations differ (list_studio_results, send_agent_message, delete_agent_session).

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?

It names three concrete motivating scenarios (find a session to continue, pick up a background result, check whether a message was queued before resending) and explicitly routes Studio's late results to list_studio_results instead. That is explicit when-to-use plus an alternative, not implied guidance.

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