get_chat_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (e.g., how 'limit' interacts with date filters), error conditions (e.g., invalid chatId), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and return data. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a read tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage differentiation from siblings. The high schema coverage helps, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify interactions between 'since', 'until', and 'limit'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('recent messages from a specific chat conversation'), and specifies the return data ('message content, sender information, and timestamps'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_recent_messages' or 'get_channel_messages', which likely have overlapping purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_messages' or 'get_channel_messages'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid chatId) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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