chat_message_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns messages in chronological order and supports pagination, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., message structure), leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 action ('List messages in a session with pagination') and adds a key behavioral detail ('Returns messages in chronological order'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-only list tool. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but omits details like response format, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. This is adequate but has clear gaps in providing full operational context.

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 parameters like 'sessionId' as a UUID and 'limit'/'offset' for pagination. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how pagination works in practice or constraints on parameter values, resulting in the baseline score.

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 'List' and resource 'messages in a session' with the additional detail 'with pagination', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'chat_search' or 'chat_session_get', which might also involve message retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 such as 'chat_search' for searching messages or 'chat_session_get' for session details. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify scenarios where pagination is necessary or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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