cm_list_transactional_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it lists 'sent' messages, which is useful, but fails to explain pagination behavior (e.g., cursor vs offset) or default sort order. With annotations covering safety, description adds limited behavioral context.

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?

One short sentence, verb first, every word earns its place. No fluff.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits details on pagination mechanism and return value structure, which are needed for full understanding.

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 coverage is 86% (most parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only broadly mentions 'filtering and pagination.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists sent transactional messages with filtering and pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like cm_get_transactional_message (single message) and cm_resend_transactional_message.

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 listing filtered transactional messages but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like cm_get_transactional_message or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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