aula_get_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context (content is in Danish, messages are individual or group), but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or behavior such as pagination, even though the schema hints at limit/days_back. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get recent messages') and free of redundant information. Every word adds value, and the language clarification is placed neatly at the end.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior, scope, and a key cultural detail (Danish content). It lacks explicit return format details, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness, it is sufficiently contextual for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions, defaults, and ranges for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, but it does provide the overall context of 'recent messages' that frames the parameter usage.

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 retrieves recent messages from Aula, specifying the type (individual or group) and source (teachers/parents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aula_get_posts or aula_get_threads, which target different content types.

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 when recent messages are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list.

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