Conversation messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only that results are "latest" messages of a single conversation; it does not say how ordering works, whether results are paginated, or what happens when the conversation has no messages.

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?

A single six-word sentence with no filler and no buried information. It earns its place, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — message fields, ordering (newest-first?), and whether `limit` truncates silently — and it says nothing about any of this. For a read tool with no output schema and an open-world annotation, that is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so channel_id ("Conversation id") and limit ("How many", default 30, max 100) are already documented. The description's phrase "one client conversation" loosely corroborates channel_id but adds no new syntax, format, or ordering semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names a specific resource (messages of a single conversation) and adds the qualifier "latest", but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no reference to the sibling chat_conversations, which is presumably where you list the conversations themselves. An agent can guess the purpose, but the boundary with the sibling is left implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (chat_conversations for listing conversations). The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.

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