read_net_messages

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

With no annotations (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), the description carries the full burden. It only states what is returned, lacking details about side effects, performance, or read-only nature. The name suggests safety, but the description does not confirm.

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 a single sentence without waste. It is concise, though extremely brief, which is acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about the output format (e.g., list, dictionary). For a straightforward tool, it is adequate but could be improved.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add param info. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns registered net messages and whether a net.Receive handler exists. It implies a read operation and distinguishes from siblings like read_entities or read_hooks by focusing on net messages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_hooks or read_entities. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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