meeting_read_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: messages are returned oldest first, truncation occurs at the newest end, and limit maxes at 500. It does not cover permissions, access requirements, or rate limits, so minor gaps remain.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then supplies ordering and limit guidance in a compact second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence's semicolon clause is slightly dense.

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 read tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers purpose, ordering behavior, and limit effects while relying on structured fields for parameter details and return values. Missing explicit usage routing to alternatives is the main gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the limit max of 500 and its effect on truncation, but adds little beyond what the schema states, fitting the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a meeting's discussion messages'), clearly distinguishing it from meeting_create, meeting_send_message, and meeting_conclude. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like meeting_attendance_check or task_memo_read, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (read a meeting's messages), and the description adds operational guidance about limit for reaching newer rounds. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as unified_search, channel_read, or report_read.

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