ibot_read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the internal-API path (~250ms, no browser), a Playwright fallback on failure, the auth prerequisite, and pagination behavior ('a resposta avisa quando ainda há mensagem mais antiga'). It stops short of confirming read-only/side-effect-free semantics or error detail beyond the fallback.

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-loads purpose, then layers fallback, pagination and prerequisite in a compact block with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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 must cover return behavior, and it does note the response flags remaining older messages; auth and failure handling are also covered. A full account of return shape or error cases is still absent.

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 both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning to 'limit' by tying it to retrieving the complete history, but no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lê o histórico de mensagens de um chat'), and adds scope beyond the name by noting internal annotations appear in the same timeline. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ibot_get_message_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: increase the limit to reach full history, and run login.js first to obtain session.json. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, which keeps it below a 5.

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