read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses what messages are included (sent to you, broadcast, your own) and mentions other_agents_seen, providing useful behavioral context. It's clear this is a read-only operation, even though some details like return format are not specified.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, filtering, and usage timing. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to filter, and when to use it. The only gap is a precise return structure, but the description suffices for selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'from_agent' filters to one conversation, which is meaningful beyond the schema's bare parameter definition. The sole parameter is adequately described.

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 action ('Read recent messages') and the scope ('sent to you or broadcast to everyone, plus your own'), which distinguishes it from other tools like send_message or read_opinions. The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use the tool: 'at the start of a session and before important decisions when other agents are connected.' It also explains how to filter via from_agent. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the usage timing is clear and contextual.

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