Get Recent Posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does communicate that this is a read-only operation, and the channel scoping is clear. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether messages and tasks are returned together, in what order, or how pagination/limit behaves.

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. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a compact usage note in parentheses. Every word adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the core action and a use case. However, given the output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, but the description still leaves the nature of 'messages/tasks' vague and does not explain the limit parameter or ordering behavior. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at channel_id via 'in a channel', and it says nothing about the limit parameter, its default, or how it affects results. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently set parameters without additional inference.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'recent messages/tasks in a channel', which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the read-focused wording contrasts with write tools like send_message and send_file.

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 parenthetical '(use to check for new Ausbilder-Aufgaben)' provides an explicit, practical use case for the tool. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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