get_application_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose pagination behavior, the 50-item cap, and the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe error behavior, rate limits, or the response format, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and include the essential pagination and auth details. There is no filler, and every part of the description contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple paginated list endpoint with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, scope, pagination, and auth. It leaves out the return format (compact vs raw) and does not relate this tool to get_application, though the schema's raw parameter partially covers the return format.

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%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating page/per_page and the 50 cap, which is already present in the schema's maximum constraint.

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 identifies the resource as 'chat messages' scoped to an application topic, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_application and get_message_template. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'get' supplies that action, so the purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'for an application topic' implies this tool is used when retrieving messages associated with an application, and the auth requirement provides a useful prerequisite. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when-not conditions, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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