get_private_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety profile, ordering of returned messages, pagination/limit behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Only the implicit (and underspecified) read semantics of "Get" are conveyed, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal tightness given the five parameters.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate for return-format and filter-interaction gaps, but it does not: it never says what messages look like, their order, or how limit, sinceDate, sinceHours and sinceMinutes combine. For a 5-parameter read tool this leaves meaningful holes.

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% – limit, contact, sinceDate, sinceHours and sinceMinutes each have their own clear schema descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning (e.g., how the since* filters interact or precedence), so the 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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("messages from a private chat conversation"), and the word "private" implicitly separates it from channel-based siblings like get_available_channels or get_channel_info. However, it never names an alternative such as search_messages or get_recent_messages to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings (get_recent_messages, search_messages, check_unread_messages), nor any prerequisites for the private chat context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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