evite_list_messages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the endpoint and resource but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or error conditions. With annotations providing the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, information-dense sentence that specifies the action, resource, and endpoint. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter, readOnly annotation), the description suffices for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the tool's name and clear 'List' purpose.

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 fully describes the single parameter (event_id) with a cross-reference to evite_list_events, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantics.

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 uses the verb 'List' with a clear resource ('messages on an Evite event's Messages tab') and includes the API endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like evite_send_message and evite_get_event.

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 clearly indicates a read/list operation, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. However, the context implies that this is for retrieving messages, not sending them, and the presence of sibling tools makes this distinction adequate.

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