list_messages_via_name_or_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses almost nothing beyond the basic action and that names resolve natively, leaving permission requirements, result ordering, and pagination behavior largely undocumented.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. It immediately states the action and supported conversation types.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify that channelIdentifier and userIdentifier are alternative targeting modes or that at least one is expected, even though required parameters are zero.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's 'Resolves names natively' aligns with the identifier parameters but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List messages') and scopes it to channels or DMs, which is clear enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_messages or list_thread_replies, so it falls short of a 5.

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 identifies the object scope (channel or DM) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_messages, list_thread_replies, or get_message_via_id. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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