Ler mensagens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, reducing the need for safety disclosure. The description adds value by explaining the 'before' timestamp pagination behavior, which is not in the annotations. However, it omits details like ordering, limit behavior, or error cases.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and directly includes the key parameter context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the simple read-only nature (annotations) and the schema providing limits and defaults, the description sufficiently covers the main use case and pagination hint. It does not describe the response format, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The pagination context adds completeness beyond a bare description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains chat_id as the conversation identifier and before as a unix timestamp for pagination, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. The schema provides default values, but the description lacks complete parameter coverage.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Lê mensagens de uma conversa (chat_id)' (reads messages from a conversation), which distinguishes it from siblings like send_message and export_chat by specifying the read action on conversation messages.

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 implies the use case (reading messages for a specific chat) by referencing chat_id and adds a practical pagination guideline with 'before' (unix ts). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the clear scope makes it easy to select.

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