get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful content-level context by enumerating the categories of warnings returned. It still omits any safety/behavioral statement (read-only retrieval, whether messages persist, relationship to delete_message), which for a zero-annotation tool is a real but modest gap given the tool takes no arguments.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it describes the payload contents without ever stating the action, so the brevity costs clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, and the enumeration of warning types complements it. Still missing is any statement of the operation itself and how it relates to sibling read/diagnostic tools, which leaves the definition only minimally 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 signals the content domain (Pi-hole diagnostic warnings: rate limiting, load, DNSMASQ errors, list issues), so an agent can infer it returns message/warning objects. However it never states a verb (list/retrieve/get) and never reconciles the name 'get_messages' with the narrower content it describes as 'warnings', leaving the actual operation implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to any sibling alternative, despite a large read-side sibling set (get_stats, get_ftl_info, get_tail_log, get_metrics). The agent must guess whether this is the place to look for health diagnostics.

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