list_recent_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds behavior beyond that — result ordering (newest first), scope across all conversations, and cursor-based pagination. It doesn't discuss rate limits or result shape, but for a read-only list tool that is a modest gap.

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?

A single sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded in caps, followed by the use cases, then the filtering/pagination capabilities. No filler; every clause carries 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and explicit annotations, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering, and pagination — enough to call it correctly. Only the returned message fields are unstated, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, including the enum and the instruction to pass pagination.nextCursor verbatim, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the filter/pagination categories without adding format or default details (e.g., the 50 default, the 1-200 range).

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 resource (messages), a precise scope (ACROSS ALL conversations), and an ordering (newest first). The 'ACROSS ALL conversations' emphasis implicitly distinguishes it from get_conversation_history, which is per-conversation, so an agent can discriminate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('catch me up', 'what did I miss today') that map to the cross-conversation, recency-oriented design, plus hints on filtering and pagination. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or an exclusion, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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