proj_get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the important side effect that the project is compiled first so violation data is current, and it describes the return shape including message, severity, and source. It does not discuss permissions, latency, or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then uses Args/Returns sections efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the Returns section largely repeats what an output schema already provides.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It could be stronger by explicitly noting when this tool should be chosen over related ERC/compile tools.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: project_path is optional and, when None, the active project is used. That is exactly the semantic information the schema lacks.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: get all messages from the Messages panel, and clarifies that this includes compile errors and ERC violations, not just one class. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as proj_get_erc_violations or proj_compile, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of compile errors and ERC violations, and the side effect of compiling first is disclosed. However, the description never states when to prefer this over proj_get_erc_violations, proj_run_erc, or proj_compile, leaving the agent to infer the correct choice among overlapping tools.

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