control_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how many messages 'recent' covers, whether there is pagination, or what the messages look like, leaving the agent to infer all of it.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the use case trailing in parentheses. It is appropriately sized, though it reads as a noun phrase rather than stating an action verb.

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?

This is a simple parameterless, output-schemaless tool, so the bar is not high, but the description omits whether the call is read-only, roughly how much history 'recent' returns, and the shape of the returned messages.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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 names the resource (recent server chat / system messages) and implicitly the verb (retrieve). It is distinguishable from control_msg, which by its name is likely the send-side counterpart, but the description never states that distinction explicitly.

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 parenthetical gives one concrete use case — diagnosing why a room was rejected or a duel was kicked — which is genuine context. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not route the agent to or away from siblings such as control_state or control_msg.

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