get_application_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful environmental constraint by stating the token requirement, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, message limits, or the exact difference between the compact summary and raw JSON response, which are relevant for a chat-message endpoint.

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 two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the authentication requirement is stated separately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers the parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important return-behavior details implicit. The raw parameter hints at 'compact summary' versus 'full raw JSON,' but the default response format, message ordering, and pagination behavior are not addressed.

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 both nid and raw fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the context already present in the schema. Therefore the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get chat messages for an application/negotiation topic.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_negotiations_statistics or get_application by the object type. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the closest alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_negotiations_statistics, get_application, or list_mail_templates. The only extra instruction, 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN,' is an authentication requirement, not a usage-selection guideline. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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