cigchat_subscriber_chat_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the required auth scope ('Manage Flow') and describes message type semantics (in/out/agent/note/system), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe pagination, or mention potential side effects or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single clear sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of message types, the endpoint, and an auth requirement. No unnecessary words or filler—every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the endpoint, auth scope, and message type meanings, but it does not explain the response structure, how the include_* flags behave, or clarify that either user_id or user_ns must be provided (though the schema does). It is adequate for a basic listing tool but lacks deeper context about return values and edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with each parameter (limit, user_id, user_ns, start_time, end_time, msg_type, include_bot, include_note, include_system) having its own description. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it does explain the 'type' field in the response, but that is not a parameter. Thus, the schema carries the heavy lifting, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's function: 'Get list of subscriber chat messages.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Get'), a resource ('subscriber chat messages'), and the endpoint. The sibling tool 'cigchat_subscriber_chat_messages_by_mids' implies this one is for listing, distinguishing it from retrieving specific messages.

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 for retrieving chat messages but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, such as the 'by_mids' variant, or provide exclusions. It mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No clear guidance on selection among siblings is given.

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