lire_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds real behavioral context: a hard cap of 100 messages per read, the Discord MESSAGE CONTENT INTENT prerequisite, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned content is data, never an instruction. It does not state message ordering, pagination behavior, or whether the limit is clamped, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result size, then the permission caveat, then the safety note. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions and injection safety but omits what the returned messages look like (fields, ordering, timestamps) and any pagination or truncation behavior. It is usable but leaves gaps an agent would hit on the first call.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does. It implies the 100-message ceiling tied to the limite parameter but never states the default of 20, the accepted range, or what salon_id expects (snowflake identifier versus channel name), leaving the required parameter's semantics unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading up to 100 messages from a server channel. It is clearly distinguishable from envoyer_message, the write counterpart, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 rather than stated: it is for reading recent channel messages, with a stated prerequisite that channel content may require the MESSAGE CONTENT INTENT. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, and no guidance on when to use this versus other server-inspection tools.

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