get_recent_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 states the tool retrieves messages with filtering but lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with 10 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and summarizes filtering capabilities. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from filter examples.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for a tool with extensive filtering options. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing filter types ('time range, scope, teams, channels, and users') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Get recent messages from across Teams with advanced filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('recent messages'), and scope ('across Teams'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_channel_messages' or 'search_messages' beyond mentioning 'advanced filtering options.'

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. It mentions filtering options but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'get_my_mentions,' leaving the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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