List Gestoria Messages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details such as returning messages newest first, using 'before' for pagination, and providing a 'hasMore' flag, which complements the annotations with useful execution context.

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 English part is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage details. The Spanish repetition is somewhat redundant but does not detract significantly. The description efficiently conveys all necessary information in a compact form.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately covers the key aspects: what is listed, ordering, pagination, and the hasMore flag. It does not cover error handling or exhaustive parameter explanations, but these are standard for list tools and not required for completeness here.

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 for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It clarifies the usage of 'before' (message ID or ISO timestamp) and 'limit' (max 100, default 50), but these are also present in the schema descriptions. No additional semantic depth is provided.

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 clearly states the tool lists messages in a gestor/cliente thread, with ordering (newest first) and pagination details. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'gestoria_message_send' by specifying the thread context, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing messages in a thread) and how to paginate using 'before' and 'hasMore'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'gestoria_message_send', but the distinction is implicit due to the list vs. send nature.

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