get_conversation_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission requirement, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., message format, ordering), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential permission information, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It covers the basic action and permission but omits details on return values (e.g., message structure), error conditions, or limitations beyond the schema. This is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'conversation_id' is obtained or typical use cases for 'limit'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 messages') and resource ('from a specific Instagram DM conversation'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_conversations' (which likely lists conversations rather than messages) or 'send_dm' (which sends messages), missing full sibling distinction.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires instagram_manage_messages permission'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_conversations' or 'get_mentions', leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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