botdigit_list_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that results are limited to 'active' threads; nothing about pagination defaults, ordering, max limit, auth requirements, or what the read is safe against.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than padding, so it earns credit without being maximal.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: whether results are paginated, how 'active' is determined, and what a thread record contains. It is not adequate for an agent to call this correctly with confidence.

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 0% for both page and limit — no types, defaults, or bounds documented anywhere. The description says nothing about paging or result caps, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter names are conventional enough to be guessable.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a clearly scoped resource ('active client/freelancer messaging threads'), which separates it from siblings like list_contracts, list_projects, and list_proposal_drafts. The only ambiguity is what 'active' means, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thread (single thread) or stage_message_draft. The 'active' qualifier hints at a default filter but never says when to prefer this call over a sibling.

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