bitrix_list_task_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that messages and comments are retrieved, but does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, potential side effects, permissions, or what the response structure looks like. For a read operation this is a minor omission, but with zero annotation support the description is still thin.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it is terse and does not add supporting detail.

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 simple list operation with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource being retrieved. But without an output schema, it does not explain return format, ordering, or how pagination/limit behaves in practice, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, with both taskId and limit already documented clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Получить'/'get') and a clear resource ('сообщения и комментарии задачи'/'task messages and comments'), so an agent can understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bitrix_get_task_history or bitrix_add_task_message, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bitrix_get_task_history or bitrix_add_task_message. The description simply states what the tool does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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