get_discussion_messages

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

The description states that messages are read-only via the API, which aligns with the tool's nature but adds little beyond the name. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior or response structure, which are important for usage.

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 extremely concise with two short, direct sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and ordering, with no unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context on pagination (how limit and before work together) and the structure of returned messages. Currently, the description is too brief to fully guide an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. The mention of 'chronological order' relates to output rather than parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving messages from a discussion in chronological order. It is specific about the resource and ordering, but does not specify ascending vs descending, which is a minor gap.

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 guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided. While there are no sibling tools for messages, the description could mention the need for project_uuid and discussion_uuid. The 'read-only' hint is present but does not constitute usage guidance.

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