List conversations

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about network eligibility and that this only covers private conversations on a single account, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for the core behavior and return payload, one sentence for network support. Every sentence adds value without repeating schema details.

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 description covers account scope, network constraints, and what data is included. Pagination behavior and ordering are not described, but limit/offset constraints exist in the schema and the output schema is present, so the definition is reasonably complete.

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 documents id_account and id_organization, but limit and offset are bare integer fields with no explanation. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should clarify pagination semantics, but it does not mention limit or offset at all.

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 what the tool does: list private conversations for one account, including who they are with, last write time, and unread count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages and get_unread_counts.

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 explicitly lists which networks support this tool and which do not, giving concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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