List chat messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, whisper inclusion with recipient information, the Gamemaster's privileged view, plain-text content rendering, and pagination via beforeId. This meaningfully helps an agent predict behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver the essential behavioral facts upfront: read-only intent, order, whisper visibility, filters, pagination, and content format. There is no redundancy with the annotations or schema, and no wasted words.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what an agent needs: ordering, filter categories, whisper behavior, plain-text content, and pagination mechanics. The schema fills parameter-level details, and annotations cover safety, so nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description mentions filters and pagination at a high level but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't introduce any parameter semantics not found in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: reading the chat log. It further specifies the exact perspective (as the Gamemaster sees it) and order (newest first), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like send-chat-message, update-chat-message, and delete-chat-message.

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 makes the use context clear: anyone wanting to read chat messages with filters, pagination, and whisper visibility will find this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative read tools, but there are no other chat-read siblings, so the context alone is sufficient. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, which keeps it from a 5.

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