get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about caching ('Results cached for 2 minutes'), which informs performance and data freshness. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, pagination, or response format, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences: 'Get recent messages from a project. Results cached for 2 minutes.' Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one required), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and caching but misses parameter explanations and broader behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters at all—it mentions neither 'project_id' nor 'limit,' nor their roles or constraints. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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's purpose: 'Get recent messages from a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('messages from a project'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_message_with_comments' or 'create_message,' which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions caching ('Results cached for 2 minutes'), but this does not help differentiate it from siblings such as 'get_message_with_comments' or 'get_projects.' There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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