get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns specific fields and hints at using the sender's ID for replies. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or that the conversation_id must come from list_conversations.

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 efficient sentences that state the purpose, return fields, and a follow-up action, with no extraneous 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?

The description mentions return fields but an output schema already exists. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., conversation_id from list_conversations) and does not address pagination or error cases. For a simple tool with good schema coverage, it is adequate but not complete.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a contextual note about using the sender's IGSID with send_dm, but does not elaborate on parameter details 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'messages from a DM conversation', clearly distinguishing this read tool from siblings like list_conversations or send_dm.

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 implies usage context (reading DM messages) and hints at a follow-up action (sending a reply), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like list_conversations.

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