List Relay Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the list operation. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or that the open-world hint implies messages may change between calls. No contradiction exists, but the description carries minimal behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy beyond echoing the title. It is compact, but it may be too sparse because important usage and parameter details are absent; however, that gap is more appropriately penalized under other dimensions.

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 should indicate what the return value looks like, but it does not. It also fails to explain how limit and cursor control pagination, which is essential for reliably listing all messages in a chat. The annotations cover safety, not completeness of invocation semantics.

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 should compensate by explaining chat_id, limit, and cursor. It only clarifies that messages are scoped to one chat, which maps to chat_id, but says nothing about cursor-based pagination or the meaning of limit. The schema's names and constraints provide some information, but the description adds little semantic value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Messages in one Relay Chat,' which clearly identifies the operation and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like relay_list_chats (lists chats, not messages) and relay_get_message (gets a single message), though it could more explicitly contrast these alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as relay_get_message or relay_list_chats. It also omits practical context like pagination behavior and whether this is the default way to browse chat history. The description must be inferred from the name and input schema.

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