خواندن پیام‌های یک گفتگو

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious side-effect policy ('Reading does not mark anything as seen') and by listing the heterogeneous content types that come back, including file_id handoff to mizito_read_file.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the side-effect note and then the paging advice. The dense field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. Minor density cost from stacking paging hints in the parenthetical.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned payload shape and cross-referencing mizito_read_file for file_id. Pagination and the absence of read receipts are covered. Remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to mizito_search_messages and mizito_get_message_info.

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 count, offset, from_date and conversation_id are already documented in detail (including the next_offset/newer_offset interplay and Jalali date formats). The description echoes the offset/from_date paging model but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Messages of one conversation') and enumerates exactly what is returned (sender, text, files, tasks, polls, meeting minutes, replies), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mizito_search_messages, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance for the two retrieval modes: page backwards with next_offset, or jump to a date with from_date. It also states the non-obvious fact that reading marks nothing as seen, which shapes when it is safe to call. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs mizito_search_messages).

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