get_flagged_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. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether it returns messages flagged by the current user or all flags, nor does it mention pagination behavior or return format. This is adequate 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, concise sentence that avoids redundancy and clearly front-loads the core purpose and scope. No wasted 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 simple nature of a getter with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about what fields are returned, pagination behavior, and any special constraints around 'flagged' (e.g., user vs. system flags). It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (type and type_id have descriptions, but limit and offset do not). The description adds meaning for 'channel or conversation' (corresponding to type and type_id), but it does not explain pagination parameters (limit/offset), leaving them underdocumented. The description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('flagged messages') plus scope ('in a channel or conversation'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_messages (all messages) and flag_message/unflag_message (actions). It clearly states what the tool does.

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 implies usage when flagged messages are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_messages for all messages') or when not to use this tool. The scope is clear, but no explicit guidance or exclusionary language is provided.

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