get_pinned_messages

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

The annotations provide a 'readOnlyHint' of true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., about pagination, error handling, or permissions), but since annotations already cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly expanding on key details without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description omits critical context for a retrieval tool: it does not mention pagination behavior (count/offset), the compact flag's effect, or how to handle missing channels. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to explain the purpose or usage of the four parameters ('channel', 'count', 'offset', 'compact'). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type names, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('pinned messages in a channel'), making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pin_message' and 'unpin_message' as it is a read operation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_channel_messages' or 'search_messages'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, filtering, or exclusion criteria.

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