get_message_ids

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose scope ('yours and the ones the owner sent from their phone') and ordering. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, or whether the listing is bounded beyond the limit default.

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 purpose sentence followed by a scoping sentence and a tidy Args block; nothing is wasted. The middle sentence ('That is yours and the ones the owner sent from their phone') is slightly awkward but carries real scoping 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies purpose, scope, ordering, and all parameter meanings. Only minor gaps remain, such as what window 'recent' covers.

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 must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: 'to' as a chat alias with omission semantics, 'filter' as a text substring match, and 'limit' with its default of 10. That covers the schema gap well, though it adds no format examples for the alias.

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 ('List this account's recent messages with their ids'), the ordering ('newest first'), and a purpose hint ('for unsend') that separates it from the heavier get_messages sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 parenthetical '(for unsend)' signals the intended workflow, implying it should be called when you need message ids for a subsequent unsend, and the scope line clarifies which messages count. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative against get_messages/get_chat_log.

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