list_messages

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns only meta information and not the body text. However, with no annotations, it lacks disclosure of authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or pagination behavior. It partially informs but is incomplete.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not specify the structure of the returned list, pagination, ordering, or any error conditions. An agent would lack sufficient context to expect the exact response format.

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 parameter 'refresh' has no description in the schema, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameter.

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 retrieves a list of messages (UTOL messages = inquiry) and specifies that it includes only meta information, not the body text. This gives a specific verb+resource+scope, but could be more explicit about distinguishing from similar sibling tools like list_announcements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools such as list_announcements. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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