read_chat

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly says the operation is read-only and does not mark anything as read, and that results are returned oldest-first. It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but the safety profile is clear.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every clause adds value: what it reads, how results are ordered, what identifiers work, and the read-only guarantee.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a read tool with fully documented parameters. It covers purpose, ordering, identifier forms, and side-effect safety. The only gap is not describing the return shape beyond 'messages,' but the schema and tool name provide enough context for invocation.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only minor context — the numeric id can come from list_chats — but otherwise repeats the chat identifier formats already in the schema.

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 and resource: reading recent messages from exactly one channel, group, or conversation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_chats (listing chats) and search_messages (searching across messages), even without naming them 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 context is clear: use this tool to read recent messages from a single chat, and the accepted identifier formats are stated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_messages or read_thread, nor does it state when not to use it.

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