read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the side effect of marking messages as read and specifies the two categories of messages returned (addressed to this agent or broadcast). However, it does not mention behavior like pagination, what happens with no messages, or any permissions/rate limits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key information (read, scope, side effect) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and side effect, but lacks guidance on output format, pagination, or when to use versus alternatives. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; the mention of 'addressed to this agent or broadcast to all' clarifies the agent_name context but doesn't detail the other parameters. The schema already describes type, since, and unread_only.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource 'messages' and the target 'for an agent'. It also clarifies the scope (addressed to this agent or broadcast to all), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message and poll.

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 some context by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as poll or get_thread, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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