Get messages in chat

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

The description discloses return format (messages, has_more, optional total_count and discussion fields), and notes that auto_expand_batches affects latency. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, and the description complements them without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first explains primary uses, second adds constraints and response details. Front-loaded, no wasted words, every sentence provides value.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview and links to full documentation. It adequately covers what an AI agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds global context about parameter interaction modes (e.g., mutual exclusivity of message_ids with query or reply_to_id), which goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 what the tool does: read or search messages in one chat, with several modes (browse latest, search text, fetch by ids, load replies). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like search_messages_globally.

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 explicitly warns not to combine message_ids with query or reply_to_id, and explains the thread_scope parameter. It could be more explicit about when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_chats or invoke_mtproto, but the focus on 'one chat' contrasts with global search.

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