Get Conversation Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as ordering, pagination, or marking messages as read, so it fails to disclose any traits beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the verb and object.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema and annotations. However, the description is minimal and doesn't mention behaviors like message ordering, media inclusion, or pagination, leaving some gaps that the output schema may or may not cover. It is adequate but not rich.

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 input schema fully describes thread_id with type, length, and a helpful description 'Conversation id (from get_conversations)'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema is adequate.

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 'Read' with resource 'messages from a Messenger conversation', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like send_message and delete_message, and from get_conversations which lists conversations.

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 indicates the tool is for reading messages, and the thread_id parameter says 'Conversation id (from get_conversations)', implying a workflow of first getting conversations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_conversations or mark_conversation_seen.

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