ktalk_get_chat_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so meaningfully. It discloses that an omitted channel is auto-resolved rather than causing a raw error, and that recording_key resolves a meeting bridge. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or ordering, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get'.

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 well organized with a front-loaded purpose and an Args block. The 'FR-10' tag is minor noise, but the rest of the text is dense and useful without padding.

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 a schema that fails to describe parameters, the description covers all inputs needed to call the tool correctly, including fallback behavior. It does not address distinction from sibling tools, but an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, so nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each of the four parameters, providing an example for channel ('general'), the exact allowed values for format, and the crucial either/or constraint that is invisible in the schema. This is more than sufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get chat messages of a meeting'), making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. Although it does not name sibling tools, 'chat messages' is distinct from the other ktalk_get_* tools, and the rest of the description reinforces the scope.

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?

It gives clear guidance on which identifier to pass ('Either recording_key or conference_key must be given') and explains the channel fallback, but it never addresses when to prefer this tool over siblings like ktalk_get_transcript or ktalk_get_summary. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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