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 mentions the tool retrieves 'recent' messages but doesn't define what 'recent' means (e.g., last 30 days, last 100 conversations). It also omits details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating scope from returned data, but it's still highly concise and effective.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and data returned but lacks context on behavior (e.g., 'recent' definition, authentication). Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain operational aspects, but it's not completely inadequate for a simple read tool.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema (type, range, default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it fetches 'recent' conversations, which doesn't directly map to the schema parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recent LinkedIn messages and InMail conversations'), including specific data fields returned (sender, preview, timestamp). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_connections or get_profile by focusing on messages rather than connections, jobs, or profiles. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential sibling messaging tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for 'recent' (timeframe), or how it differs from other tools that might access messages. With siblings like get_connections and send_connection_request, there's no explicit comparison to help an agent choose appropriately.

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