get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission constraint ('canRead permission'), which is useful, but lacks details on other traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means in terms of time frame. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., message format, ordering), error cases, or behavioral nuances like pagination or rate limits, which are important for effective tool use in this context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('chatId' and 'limit') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of 'chatId' or usage of 'limit', resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent messages from a chat'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_chats' or 'get_status', which prevents a perfect score.

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 'Only works for chats with canRead permission', which implies a prerequisite but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_chats' for broader chat listings or 'send_message' for different actions. The usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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