List Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: cursor-based pagination, default ordering by created_datetime descending, and the optional ticket filter. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and concisely covers scope, pagination, filtering, and ordering. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what is listed, pagination mechanism, ordering, and filtering. It lacks mention of response structure, but that is often implied for list endpoints and the schema provides parameter details. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value—it repeats the ticket_id filter and default ordering, but does not introduce any new meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 the tool lists messages across all tickets, with specific features like cursor-based pagination, optional ticket_id filtering, and default ordering. It distinguishes from siblings like gorgias_list_ticket_messages and gorgias_get_message by explicitly scoping to 'across all tickets'.

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 for when to use the tool (listing messages globally, optionally filtered by ticket). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, especially given the existence of sibling gorgias_list_ticket_messages which likely serves per-ticket listing.

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