chat_getMessages

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

readOnlyHint=true is provided in annotations, and the description ('Gets') aligns with this, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation and schema, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or that threadName filters results. Given the annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, this is adequate but not enriching.

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: 'Gets messages from a Google Chat space.' It starts with the verb, clearly states the resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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-only message-fetching tool, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits important usage context such as the optional threadName filter, pagination through pageToken, and ordering via orderBy. Since there is no output schema, the description also doesn't indicate whether a list or a single message is returned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 parameters (orderBy, pageSize, pageToken, spaceName, threadName) already have clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 'Gets messages from a Google Chat space' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (messages in a space). It is specific enough to distinguish from the broader sibling tools like chat_listSpaces (lists spaces) and chat_listThreads (lists threads), though it does not explicitly call out these alternatives.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus chat_listThreads or chat_findSpaceByName, nor does it mention any prerequisites or filtering scenarios. The only context comes from the name and description, which is not sufficient for an agent deciding between message-list and thread-list tools.

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