agentsecure.list_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), empty-result behavior, the redaction model (body [redacted], body_summary capped at 120 chars, body_sha256 is a non-recoverable digest), and the non-mutating guarantee. It omits any statement about result-count limits or pagination for large mailboxes, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then usage alternatives — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It runs slightly long, spending several clauses on redaction mechanics that could be compressed, but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly spends its budget describing the returned fields (message_id, participants, subject, status, thread IDs, timestamps) and the redaction constraints an agent must respect. Combined with a 2-param schema at full coverage, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 agent_id and include_read semantics (default false, unread only, neither setting marks read) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds a concrete example object, which is marginal value over structured fields — 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List messages addressed to one agent in the local Community Mesh store') with explicit scope and return shape. It names the two sibling tools it is not (check_messages, read_message) and what each does instead, so an agent can pick without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use agentsecure.check_messages for counts only or agentsecure.read_message to mark a specific record read', plus the exclusion 'Does not mark messages read'. The when/when-not/alternative triple is fully covered, and an inline example call is provided.

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