mgmt_messengers_list

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 says 'List', which implies read-only, but it does not mention authorization requirements, whether results are scoped by a counter, or any pagination or response behavior.

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 very short and direct, with no filler. The URL is somewhat redundant for an agent but not harmful; the core instruction is clear enough.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it omits usage context, return value shape, and authentication/behavioral notes that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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% for the single optional 'pretty' parameter, so the schema already handles parameter documentation. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable under the baseline.

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 action ('List') and resource ('messengers') with a scope qualifier ('for messenger goal type'), distinguishing it from a generic listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools such as mgmt_social_networks_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools, nor are there conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence simply describes the operation.

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