im_chat_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (adding thread for available threads), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on pagination behavior, default sorting, or return format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function and a notable feature. However, the phrase 'для доступных тредов добавляет thread' is a bit ambiguous and could be clearer, slightly reducing the score.

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 does not explain the return structure, but it does cover supported dialog types and the thread feature. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves room for more detail on the thread behavior and message retrieval specifics.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear explanations for limit, first_id, and dialog_id (including examples). The description itself adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves messages from chats, channels, or personal dialogs, using a specific verb ('Получить') and resource ('сообщения'). It also mentions the thread-adding behavior, which helps distinguish it from plain message retrieval tools, though the concept of 'thread' is not fully explained.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like im_thread_messages or tasks_chat_messages. The only hint is the mention of thread addition, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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