get_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral details: 'Shows resolved sender names in group chats' and 'includes attachment info', disclosing output nuances beyond a simple read. It does not cover pagination, error handling, or auth, but for a read-only tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action immediately. Every sentence earns its place, adding search identifiers and output features without redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: identifiers, resolved sender names, and attachment info. It lacks explicit pagination/limit discussion, but the schema covers that, and the tool is straightforward.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's contact description ('Contact name, phone number, email, or group chat name' appears in both). The limit parameter is not elaborated in the description, so it adds no new meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 'Read messages from a conversation' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_messages (which searches across conversations) and get_conversations (which lists conversations). It also specifies search identifiers (contact name, phone number, email, or group name), making the scope 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 description implies usage for reading messages from a specific conversation identified by contact/group, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_messages or get_attachments. There is clear context for when to use this tool, but no explicit when-not-to-use statements.

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