read_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'lit' (reads), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes metadata (e.g., timestamps, authors), or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence ('Lit l'historique des messages') that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Reads recent messages from a channel') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what the tool returns (e.g., list of messages, error handling), behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, potential limits), and usage guidance. For a tool that likely returns data, the absence of output information is a notable gap, making it inadequate for full understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'channelId' (ID du canal) and 'limit' (Nombre de messages, with min/max/default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the format of 'channelId' or how 'limit' affects ordering). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 'Lit l'historique des messages' (Reads message history) states a clear verb ('lit' - reads) and resource ('historique des messages' - message history), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'list_messages' (none exist in the provided list), and the phrasing is somewhat vague about what exactly 'history' entails. It's functional but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a channel ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'envoyer_message' for sending or 'delete_message' for deletion). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters.

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