yougile_list_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the scope ('Also works for group chats') and the chatId mapping, but does not disclose pagination/ordering behavior or return details. Minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations, so score is 3.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the critical chatId mapping and group chat compatibility in the following sentences. No wasted words.

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 read-only list operation with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose, the chatId mapping, and compatibility with group chats. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over yougile_get_message and does not explain return value structure, but the absence of an output schema and simplicity of the tool keep the gap modest.

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?

The input schema descriptions cover all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including the chatId explanation 'for task chats, this equals the task UUID'. The tool description redundantly states this mapping but also clarifies that chatId applies to group chats, slightly augmenting the schema. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage, with minor added value.

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 'Get messages from a chat' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like yougile_get_message/send_message/delete_message by implying list semantics. It adds the chatId mapping for task chats, making the purpose unambiguous. Context about group chats broadens the scope clearly.

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 clear context about when to use it: for both task chats and group chats, with the explicit rule 'chatId = taskId' for task chats. However, it does not reference alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use yougile_get_message for a single message'), so guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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