ghl_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 only states the basic action without revealing behavior such as pagination support (via lastMessageId), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description does not add value beyond the raw action, leaving the agent without essential context about how the tool 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, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose. It contains no filler, redundant information, or unnecessary qualifiers. It is well-structured for a simple getter tool, entirely earning its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide more context. It does not explain what the response contains (beyond 'messages'), how to handle pagination, or any constraints. The tool has three parameters and pagination implications, but the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent, especially compared to sibling tools that have more detailed descriptions.

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 33% (only lastMessageId has a description). The tool description fails to compensate by explaining the meaning or expected format of conversationId or limit. The mention of 'in a conversation' implies the need for a conversation ID, but it adds no detail about the limit parameter or how pagination works, leaving ambiguity for two of the three parameters.

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 'Get messages in a conversation' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (messages within a conversation), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_get_conversation (gets the conversation itself) and ghl_send_message (sends messages). It is specific and avoids vagueness.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ghl_get_conversation or other message-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when pagination is needed, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implicitly suggested by the tool's name and description.

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