Get messaging messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned in each message, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits details like pagination behavior or how the filter parameter works, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently lists the fields without excess. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and return fields, but lacks details on pagination (top/skip), ordering, and the OData filter syntax. It does not reference sibling tools to guide selection. Given no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent with gaps on how to properly construct queries beyond the queueName hint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It introduces queueName as a filter mechanism, but that parameter is not in the schema; it likely refers to a filter expression. The description does not explain top, skip, filter, select, or orderby, which are the actual schema parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema 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 the action (list) and the resource (individual JMS messages), and provides specifics about filtering by queueName and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messaging_queues (which lists queues) and retry/move tools. The verb+resource is 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 provides a usage hint by mentioning the queueName filter for scoping, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like retry_messaging_messages or move_messaging_messages. There is no exclusion or 'when not to use' guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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