read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The word 'read' implies a non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose details like time window behavior, ordering, or pagination limits, which are left to parameter names and defaults.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It succinctly conveys the core function without repetition or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits any mention of return format, the meaning of 'recent' (hours_back), or the need to first retrieve server/channel IDs via sibling tools. This leaves important gaps for safe and correct 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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'Recent' hints at hours_back, but it does not clarify the meaning of server_id, channel_id, or max_messages, or how they interact. The agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 the action ('read'), the resource ('recent messages'), and the scope ('from a specific channel'). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like get_servers and get_channels (which list resources) and send_message (which writes).

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 that this tool is used to read messages in a channel, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server_id and channel_id from get_servers/get_channels). Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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