Read IRC message history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context that msgid values are available for reply/react/redact, but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication, or other operational details. This adds some value but not extensive context.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second adds actionable guidance about msgid usage. It is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 6 parameters, including mode and msgid for pagination, but the description fails to explain how these parameters interact. It relies on the output schema and annotations, yet leaves out crucial operational context like how to fetch messages around a specific msgid or what format options exist. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'target' is a channel or DM and hints that 'msgid' is used from results, but it does not explain modes (before/after/around), limit, format, or account. This leaves most parameters semantically underdefined.

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 fetches recent messages from a channel or DM, with a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like irc_recent_events or irc_list_conversations, the title 'Read IRC message history' and the action of fetching messages make the purpose clear.

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 sentence 'Use msgid values from results for reply/react/redact' implies the tool should be used to obtain message IDs for subsequent actions, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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