weflow_get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides only a high-level summary of features and does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), error handling, authentication requirements, or safety implications. The tool is read-only in nature, but the description lacks important context about how results are returned or what media export entails.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently communicates the key capabilities without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not cover return format details, pagination behavior, how ChatLab format differs from JSON, or how this tool relates to sibling weflow_get_session_messages_chatlab. The agent would likely need additional investigation to use it correctly.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning by grouping several parameters into features: 'date ranges' implies start/end, 'keyword filtering' implies keyword, 'ChatLab format' implies format=chatlab, and 'media export flags' implies image/video/voice/emoji/media. However, it does not explain talker, limit, offset, or the full format enum, leaving many parameters underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('messages from one WeFlow session by talker ID'), clearly indicating the tool's scope. It also lists supported features (date ranges, keyword filtering, ChatLab format, media export flags) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool weflow_get_session_messages_chatlab, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for retrieving messages from a session with various options, it does not mention exclusions or name sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent to infer the correct choice.

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