get_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that save_to_file=True will save to a JSON file and return the path, which is a side effect. However, it does not disclose whether retrieving messages is idempotent, whether the buffer resets after reading, or any rate limits. Critical behavioral traits like these are missing, making it insufficient for safe agent reasoning.

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 concise with three short sentences plus parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage timing hint follows immediately. There is no extraneous information. A small improvement would be to integrate the parameter descriptions more seamlessly, but overall it is efficient.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description has a heavy burden that it only partially meets. It explains parameters and usage timing but omits the return format (e.g., what does the tool return when save_to_file is False? Are messages in a particular structure?). Also missing is behavior on repeated calls and possible errors. The description is incomplete for making informed decisions.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so: limit as maximum messages (default 50), offset for pagination, save_to_file for saving to JSON. These explanations add meaning beyond the schema's type and default values. The only gap is no explanation of offset's default value (0) or interaction with limit.

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 that the tool retrieves messages from the injected script's send() calls. The verb 'get' and resource 'messages' are specific. The context of injection and send() adds clarity, though it could be more explicit about what messages represent. Compared to siblings like launch_app or execute, this tool's purpose is distinct, but no explicit differentiation is given.

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 one key usage guideline: 'Call this after the user has triggered the target functionality.' This gives a precondition for use. However, no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided. Given the sibling tools cover different actions (e.g., connect, execute), the lack of exclusion is acceptable, but the guideline is minimal.

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