get_forum_post_messages

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'Get messages', implying read-only but no details on auth, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if thread_id is invalid. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it lacks critical details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It earns its place but is insufficient.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Tool returns a list of messages, but description doesn't mention sorting, pagination behavior, or response structure. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'messages from a forum post thread', making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forum_posts (which lists threads) and reply_to_forum_post (which adds). However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., pagination).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use get_forum_post_messages vs list_forum_posts is implied by name but not explicitly stated. No when-not or context clues.

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