Ler mensagens

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

The description says markRead=true marks the conversation as read, which is a state mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct contradiction and per the rubric scores 1.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by pagination and markRead behavior. No filler or repetition.

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?

It covers ordering, pagination, and markRead semantics, but with no output schema it does not explain the shape of returned messages or permission expectations. For a seven-parameter read tool, that leaves a meaningful gap.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds useful context about ordering and pagination by message id, but largely aligns with what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads messages from a channel, DM, or thread, with ordering detail. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_message or search_messages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is for reading messages and explains pagination parameters, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_message, search_messages, or watch_channel, and no exclusions.

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