Read recent LINE activity

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the default exclusion of official accounts and the grouped-by-chat return structure. This gives the agent practical expectations without needing to inspect the schema. While pagination/limits are not mentioned, the read-only nature and output schema reduce the need.

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?

Two sentences, perfectly front-loaded: first the main action, then a use case, then a default behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy, achieving high informational density in minimal space.

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?

For a read-only query tool with full parameter documentation, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose, a concrete use case, and a key behavioral default. It does not describe pagination or the specific payload of messages, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover those details. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with each parameter clearly described. The description only reinforces the include_official default ('Official accounts are excluded by default') without adding new parameter semantics or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return recent conversations with both sides of their messages, grouped by chat.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like get_messages or list_chats by emphasizing grouping and the inclusion of both message sides. The note about official accounts being excluded by default adds a distinguishing behavioral detail.

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?

'Use this for daily or weekly briefs' provides a clear contextual use case, which guides when the agent should select this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, so exclusions are only implicit.

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