Сообщения чата

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

Annotations already declare read safety and idempotency. The description adds value by listing the types of content returned (text, images, voice, links, date), which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 short sentences, no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and followed by return type details.

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?

No output schema, so description carries the burden. It lists content types but omits other possible fields (e.g., sender, timestamp format, IDs). For a read-only tool with annotations, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema; the mention of pagination hints at limit/offset but does not elaborate.

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 states it lists chat messages with pagination and specifies returned content types (text, images, voice, links, date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like messenger_get_chats_v2 (which lists chats, not messages) and CPA chat tools. The verb is implied, and the resource is explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions pagination, it does not specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over messenger_get_chat_by_id_v2 or CPA tools, nor does it exclude inappropriate uses.

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