list_pinned

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does state 'Read-only', which is the most important safety-relevant trait. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or other return behavior, but for a simple read-only list the missing detail is not severe.

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 compact, front-loading the resource and its read-only nature with no filler. Minor grammatical polish could improve readability, but it is efficient overall.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only list: the resource type and safety posture are clear, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. Since there is no output schema, an explicit statement about the returned message list or pagination behavior would make it more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already documents the chat identifier and limit parameter adequately.

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 resource as pinned messages within a chat and characterizes them as rules, links, or announcements. It does not use an explicit verb like 'List', but 'Read-only' and the tool name make the retrieval intent clear.

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 phrase 'usually its rules, links or announcements' gives implied context for when pinned messages are relevant. However, it does not explicitly route an agent away from sibling tools like read_chat, get_messages, or search_messages, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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