get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, ordering, return type, or any limitations. The presence of limit and lastMessageId in the schema suggests important behaviors that the description fails to explain.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks context about return format and pagination behavior. It does not explain how limit and lastMessageId affect the result, but this is partially covered by the schema.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. It does not elaborate on limit or lastMessageId semantics, but the schema already covers these adequately.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' with resource 'messages' and scope 'in a conversation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_conversation which targets the conversation object itself. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the phrase 'in a conversation' — it is clear you need a conversation ID. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_conversations or get_conversation, nor any exclusions.

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